Comparative Analysis of Investment Opportunities in the Consumer Goods Industry: Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark

Research Article
Open access

Comparative Analysis of Investment Opportunities in the Consumer Goods Industry: Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark

Yizhang Chang 1*
  • 1 Singapore Kaplan University, 8 Wilkie Road, Level 2, 228095, Singapore    
  • *corresponding author CT0373253@kaplan.edu.sg
Published on 3 January 2025 | https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/2024.LD19032
AEMPS Vol.145
ISSN (Print): 2754-1177
ISSN (Online): 2754-1169
ISBN (Print): 978-1-83558-839-0
ISBN (Online): 978-1-83558-840-6

Abstract

The consumer goods industry is characterised by rapid innovation and fierce competition, driven by changing consumer choices, technological innovations, and a growing emphasis on sustainability. This study will evaluate the investment potential of four leading companies in this sector—Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark—by comparing their financial performance, market position, innovation capacity, and sustainability practices. The analysis uses a quantitative approach to examine key financial ratios, market trends, and Environmental, Social, and Governance performance, drawing on annual reports and ESG ratings. The findings reveal that while Procter & Gamble and Unilever demonstrate strong financial health, Unilever stands out for its robust commitment to sustainability. Despite excellent profitability, Colgate-Palmolive faces higher risks due to significant debt, and Kimberly-Clark, known for its hygiene products, struggles with cost pressures. Overall, Unilever is the most favourable investment opportunity, balancing innovation with sustainable growth. This research aids investor decision-making by comparing these companies thoroughly, illustrating how sustainability and innovation can foster long-term success in the ever-evolving consumer goods sector.

Keywords:

consumer goods industry, financial performance analysis, profitability, ESG, risk analysis

Chang,Y. (2025). Comparative Analysis of Investment Opportunities in the Consumer Goods Industry: Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,145,103-110.
Export citation

1. Introduction

The consumer goods sector is characterised by its rapid pace of change and intense competition, which are driven by shifting consumer preferences, technological progress, and a heightened focus on sustainability [1]. As global populations grow and consumer behaviour shifts toward health-conscious and eco-friendly products, major players in this industry are continually adapting their strategies to maintain market relevance [2]. Procter & Gamble, founded in 1837, is renowned for its strong brand portfolio and innovative products across various categories, including personal care, cleaning, and baby care. With a history dating back to 1929, Unilever has established a robust presence worldwide, emphasising sustainability and responsible sourcing. Colgate-Palmolive, established in 1806, focuses on oral, personal, and home care products, leveraging its strong brand recognition and customer loyalty. Kimberly-Clark, known for its health and hygiene products, has also positioned itself as a leader in sustainability, aiming for significant environmental impact reduction. This study aims to determine these companies’ most promising investment opportunities by evaluating various financial ratios, market trends, and sustainability practices. The analysis utilises key financial data from the latest annual reports, market share information, and ESG ratings. It will use a quantitative approach, examining financial ratios (profitability, liquidity, leverage), market analysis, and environmental ESG metrics. It will focus on recent financial performance and strategic positioning, offering valuable insights for investors in this sector. This research will contribute to investors’ interest in the consumer goods sector and provide a method to help with investment decision-making.

2. Industry Overview

The consumer goods industry is marked by intense competition and rapid market changes driven by shifting consumer preferences, economic conditions, and technological advancements [3]. Major companies like Procter & Gamble (P&G), Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark vie for market dominance, each facing distinct strengths and challenges. This research analyses and compares these companies to identify the most promising investment opportunity.

The consumer goods industry is highly dynamic, spanning products from personal care to household items. Companies compete on innovation, brand loyalty, and supply chain management.

3. Company Overview

3.1. Procter & Gamble (P&G)

Procter & Gamble operates in over 180 countries, offering a broad portfolio of well-known brands such as Pampers, Tide, Gillette, and Head & Shoulders [4]. The company is active in key sectors like personal healthcare, fabric and home care, beauty, and grooming. P&G is known for its dedication to innovation, regularly launching new products and improving existing ones to meet changing consumer demands. Its significant investment in research and development helps it stay ahead in the competitive market. P&G’s global presence is strengthened by effective marketing strategies utilising traditional and digital channels to engage consumers. The company has also made notable progress in sustainability, reducing its environmental impact through initiatives like waste reduction, water conservation, and sustainable sourcing of raw materials. With a strong foothold in established and emerging markets, P&G is well-positioned to capitalise on global growth opportunities, solidifying its leadership in the consumer goods sector.

3.2. Unilever

Unilever, with its extensive portfolio that includes brands like Dove, Axe, Lipton, and OMO, operates in over 190 countries [5]. The company provides various products spanning personal care, food and beverages, and home care categories. Unilever is especially recognised for its sustainability efforts, focusing on cutting plastic waste, promoting ethical sourcing, and improving the well-being of the communities it serves. Through its Sustainable Living Plan, Unilever aims to grow its business without increasing its environmental footprint and drive positive social change. This dedication to sustainability strongly aligns with consumer values—particularly younger demographics prioritising environmentally friendly products. Additionally, the company’s adaptability in responding to changing consumer preferences has solidified its strong presence in developed and emerging markets, allowing for sustained growth.

3.3. Colgate-Palmolive

Colgate-Palmolive specialises in dental care, personal hygiene, household care, and pet food, and its flagship brand is Colgate. Operating in over 200 countries, the company emphasises innovation and efficiency. Colgate-Palmolive invests heavily in research and development to create new products that address consumer needs and preferences, particularly in oral hygiene and personal care. The company is also dedicated to sustainability, with initiatives focused on reducing water usage, increasing the recyclability of its packaging, and sourcing ingredients responsibly [6]. Colgate-Palmolive’s global footprint and commitment to quality have made it a trusted name in consumer goods, and its strong marketing strategies help maintain its competitive edge in the market.

3.4. Kimberly-Clark

Kimberly-Clark’s commitment to corporate social responsibility is evident in its various comm-Clark focuses on essential consumer products such as diapers, tissues, and personal care items, with well-known brands like Huggies, Kleenex, and Scott [7]. It is operating in over 175 countries. Kimberly-Clark is a top player in the hygiene and personal care industry and is known for its innovation and high standards. The company prioritises sustainability, reducing waste, enhancing water efficiency, and incorporating eco-friendly materials into its products: unity engagement programs and efforts to promote health and hygiene worldwide. The company’s strong presence in developed and emerging markets enables it to capture a wide customer base, ensuring its continued success in the consumer goods sector.

4. Methodology

The study employs a comprehensive analysis of financial ratios, including profitability, liquidity, and leverage ratios, to assess the companies’ financial health. Additionally, it evaluates market position and brand analysis by examining market share, brand equity, and geographic diversification. The research also reviews R&D spending and its impact on competitiveness to understand each company’s innovation capacity. ESG performance is assessed by examining ESG ratings and sustainability practices, while risk assessment identifies macroeconomic, market, regulatory, and operational risks that could affect the companies’ performance. This multifaceted approach allows for a thorough evaluation of the investment potential among the four leading consumer goods companies.

4.1. Financial Performance

The financial performance involves analysing key financial ratios such as revenue growth, profitability margins (gross, operating, and net profit margins), return on equity, and return on assets. Investors can assess the companies’ financial health and operational efficiency by comparing these metrics [8].

4.2. Market Position

The analysis includes market share data, competitive positioning, and growth strategies [9]. This information will help identify each company’s standing within the consumer goods sector and its ability to capture market opportunities.

4.3. Innovation Ability

This aspect focuses on the companies’ investment in research and development (R&D), product launches, and the introduction of new technologies. Analysing how each company fosters innovation will provide insights into its potential for future growth and adaptability to market changes.

4.4. ESG Performance

This evaluation includes analysing the companies’ sustainability practices, corporate governance structures, and social responsibility initiatives [10]. ESG ratings and reports will be utilised to understand how each company addresses environmental issues, engages with communities, and maintains ethical governance.

5. Analysis

5.1. Financial Performance Analysis

Table 1 presents the financial ratios of those four selected firms.

Table 1: Financial ratios of four candidate companies

Company

Gross Profit Margin

Operating Profit Margin

Net Profit Margin

Debt-to-Equity Ratio

Assumed Return on Assets (ROA)

Conclusion

Procter & Gamble

50.3%

23.2%

18.3%

0.70

Strong due to efficient asset use

Top investment choice; strong profitability, efficient asset use, balanced leverage

Unilever

42.5%

16.1%

15.0%

0.85

Moderate due to lower profit margins

Reasonable investment, but less efficient than P&G

Colgate-Palmolive

59.7%

N/A

N/A

8.06

Likely undermined by high debt levels

High profitability but extreme leverage makes it risky

Kimberly-Clark

33.8%

14.9%

N/A

1.93

Likely poor due to weak profitability

Weak profitability and high leverage make it the least attractive option

5.1.1. Gross Profit Margin

This ratio shows the profit left after sales. Companies with a high gross profit margin, such as Colgate-Palmolive (59.7%) and Procter & Gamble (50.3%), typically have strong pricing power and cost control, indicating a significant competitive advantage in the market. A relatively lower gross profit margin, like Kimberly-Clark (33.8%), suggests higher costs and possibly weaker competitiveness [11].

5.1.2. Operating Profit Margin

This metric indicates the company’s ability to profit from its primary business activities. Procter & Gamble (23.2%) has the highest operating profit margin, showing its efficiency in managing expenses. In contrast, Unilever (16.1%) and Kimberly-Clark (14.9%) have lower operating profit margins, indicating weaker operational efficiency.

5.1.3. Net Profit Margin

This ratio reveals the overall profitability of the company [11]. Procter & Gamble (18.3%) and Unilever (15.0%) show strong net profit margins, indicating robust profitability after taxes and interest payments. The absence of data for Colgate-Palmolive and Kimberly-Clark may suggest that other factors, such as high debt, affect their profitability.

5.1.4. Debt-to-Equity Ratio

This ratio measures the use of financial leverage. Colgate-Palmolive (8.06) has an extremely high leverage ratio, meaning it relies heavily on debt financing, which increases financial risk [12]. In contrast, Procter & Gamble (0.70) has a relatively low debt ratio, indicating a more stable financial structure with lower investment risk.

5.1.5. Return on Assets (ROA)

ROA reflects the company’s ability to generate profits using its assets. Procter & Gamble shows strong asset utilisation efficiency, while Kimberly-Clark and Colgate-Palmolive may have their ROA impacted by high debt or weaker profitability. Procter & Gamble is the most attractive investment option, showing strong profitability, high asset utilisation, and moderate debt. Unilever also has some investment value but lower profitability. Colgate-Palmolive’s high profitability is offset by its extremely high leverage, making it riskier. With weak profitability and high leverage, Kimberly-Clark poses the greatest risk and is the least attractive option.

5.2. Market Position and Brand Analysis

P&G operates in more than 180 countries worldwide, has a strong brand portfolio, including Pampers, Tide, and Gillette, and has a high degree of brand recognition and market share. Unilever is also widely distributed around the world, with diversified brand portfolios such as Dove and Lipton, and is famous for its investment in sustainable development. Colgate-Palmolive occupies a leading position in the oral care market, and its operations in more than 200 countries worldwide give it wide market coverage. Kimberly-Clark is outstanding in the field of hygiene products. Its brands, such as Huggies and Kleenex, have strong market recognition, but they mainly face the challenges of raw material price fluctuations and brand competition.

In summary, each company demonstrates strong market presence and brand recognition, with P&G and Unilever leading in sustainability and innovation. Colgate-Palmolive maintains a competitive edge in oral care, while Kimberly-Clark excels in hygiene products but faces challenges from fluctuating raw material prices. These companies represent significant investment opportunities, though potential investors should weigh the unique strengths and risks associated with each.

5.3. Innovation Research and Development

P&G and Unilever have significant advantages in research and development investment. P&G continues to invest in technological innovation and brand upgrading to maintain its market competitiveness. Unilever caters to the changing needs of consumers through innovation and sustainable development practices. In contrast, Colgate-Palmolive and Kimberly-Clark have relatively low R&D investment, mainly focussing on improving and optimising core product lines. P&G and Unilever’s strong focus on research and development position them as leaders in innovation within the consumer goods sector. Their commitment to technological advancements and sustainability enables them to meet evolving consumer demands effectively and maintain competitive advantages. In contrast, Colgate-Palmolive and Kimberly-Clark’s lower R&D investments may limit their ability to adapt to market changes and innovate beyond their core product offerings. Therefore, while all four companies have established market presence, P&G and Unilever are better equipped for long-term growth and adaptability through their substantial R&D investments.

5.4. ESG Performance

Regarding ESG performance, Unilever is the most prominent, and its sustainability strategy is integrated throughout all aspects of its business operations. P&G has also invested many resources in the field of ESG, especially in environmental sustainability and social responsibility. Colgate-Palmolive and Kimberly-Clark’s performance in ESG is relatively weak, but they are also actively improving their sustainable development practices.

5.5. Summarise of Analysis

Based on the comprehensive analysis of financial performance, innovation capabilities, and ESG practices, it is evident that Unilever is the most favourable investment opportunity among the four companies. Its strong commitment to sustainability, coupled with substantial investments in research and development, positions it well for long-term growth and adaptability in a changing market landscape. Procter & Gamble (P&G) also presents a solid investment case, showcasing strong financial metrics and a focus on environmental and social responsibility, though it slightly lags behind Unilever in overall ESG performance. In contrast, while notable players in their respective segments, Colgate-Palmolive and Kimberly-Clark have lower ESG performance and R&D investments, which may hinder their ability to innovate and sustain competitive advantages in the future. Therefore, investors seeking to prioritise sustainability and innovative growth should consider Unilever the best option, with P&G also being a strong contender.

6. Risk Analysis

Procter & Gamble (P&G) presents a strong investment opportunity, but it is important to recognise and analyse the specific risks that could impact its business operations and financial performance.

6.1. Macroeconomic Risk

In an economic recession, consumers often cut back on discretionary spending, even everyday items. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many consumers shifted to cheaper alternatives or reduced purchases of premium products, which could affect P&G’s high-end offerings like speciality skincare brands. Rising inflation will also lead to increased costs for raw materials and logistics. For instance, if the price of palm oil or petroleum rises, P&G might face higher production costs for shampoos and detergents. P&G’s ability to pass these costs onto consumers without losing market share is critical.

6.2. Market Risks

Fierce Competition: P&G competes with both well-established companies and up-and-coming startups. Companies like Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive are constantly innovating. For example, if Unilever releases a new environmentally friendly detergent at a competitive price, it could take market share away from P&G’s Tide brand. Changing Consumer Preferences: There is a growing trend toward natural and organic products. If P&G fails to expand its portfolio to include more sustainable and natural product lines, it risks losing customers to competitors who do.

6.3. Regulatory Risks

The problem may arise in compliance with regulations. P&G operates in multiple jurisdictions, each with different regulations regarding product safety and environmental impact. A recent example includes the European Union’s stringent regulations on plastic use. Non-compliance could result in hefty fines or product bans, impacting sales. Trade Policies: Changes in trade policies can affect P&G’s supply chain and profitability. For example, increased tariffs on imported materials from China could raise production costs for P&G products made in the U.S. using those materials.

6.4. Operational Risks

Supply Chain vulnerabilities are a potential risk. P&G relies on a complex global supply chain. Disruptions, like the Suez Canal blockage in 2021, can delay shipments of raw materials and finished goods, leading to inventory shortages and potential lost sales. Raw Material Costs are another problem. Fluctuations in commodity prices can impact production. For instance, if the cost of chemicals used in cleaning products increases significantly, P&G may struggle to maintain margins if it cannot raise prices accordingly.

6.5. Reputation and Brand Risk

P&G’s reputation is closely tied to product quality. Any product recall incidents—such as the 2016 recall of certain Pantene products due to contamination—can lead to consumer distrust and damage brand equity. As for sustainability commitments, P&G has committed to ambitious goals like reducing plastic waste and carbon emissions. If the company fails to meet these goals, it could face backlash from consumers and environmental groups, damaging its brand reputation.

7. Conclusion

This study compares Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark using financial analysis, market position, innovation, and risk evaluation. Procter & Gamble is the most stable investment due to its strong financial health. Unilever offers balanced growth potential with its diversified portfolio. Colgate-Palmolive is attractive for its high margins but has high debt levels. Kimberly-Clark provides stable returns but faces cost pressures and competition. This analysis aids in understanding the consumer goods sector’s competitive landscape and making informed investment decisions.


References

[1]. Abubakari, M. and Thuranira, B. (2021). The Consumer Goods Sector and the Sustainability Agenda in Ghana: A Review of Sustainability Commitments. Discover Sustainability, 2, 1-17.

[2]. Ibojo, B. O. and Esther, A. M. (2023). Effect of Training on Employees’ Quality of Work in Consumer Goods Firms: An Empirical Review. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research, 9(11), 111-125. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.56201/ijssmr.v9.no11.2023.pg111.125.

[3]. Sima, V., Gheorghe, I. G., Subić, J. and Nancu, D. (2020). Influences of the Industry 4.0 Revolution on the Human Capital Development and Consumer Behavior: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 12(10), 4035.

[4]. Procter & Gamble (P&G). (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://us.pg.com/annualreport2023/. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[5]. Unilever. (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.unilever.com/files/92ui5egz/production/b09c3510ee7cec58440d5f044f02bdefe85aa186.pdf. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[6]. Colgate-Palmolive. (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://investor.colgatepalmolive.com/financial-information/annual-reports. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[7]. Kimberly-Clark. (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.kimberly-clark.com/-/media/kimberly/pdf/annual-report/kimberly-clark-2023-annual-report.pdf. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[8]. Yassen, S. T. and Alrefaee, S. A. S. (2022). The Effect of Financial Ratios on Bank Credit for a Sample of Iraqi Commercial Banks. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 1-12.

[9]. Mastuti, D. N., Widodo, R. E., Wijanarko, B., Purwoko, H. and Suhendra, A. (2024). Marketing of Management: Share Market, Potential Market, Competitor Business and Promotion (Literature Review). International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary, 3(2), 236-250.

[10]. Daugaard, D. and Ding, A. (2022). Global Drivers for ESG Performance: The Body of Knowledge. Sustainability, 14(4), 2322.

[11]. Asiyah, B. N., Huda, Q., Adlan, M. A., Aswad, M., Holle, M. H., Jamaludin, H. B. and Azira, S. N. (2024, June). Profitability Analysis of Coal Mining Companies Based on Indonesia Sharia Stock Index: A Review of Net Profit Margin, Total Asset Turnover and Company Size. In International Joint Conference/Seminar, 1(2), 13-30.

[12]. Desmon, A. R. W. A. and Meirinaldi, Y. C. (2022, January). The Effect of Return on Asset, Return on Equity and Debt to Equity Ratio on the Value of the Manufacturing Firm Listed on Stock Exchange 2015-2019. In MIC 2021: Proceedings of the First Multidiscipline International Conference, MIC 2021, October 30 2021, Jakarta, Indonesia (Vol. 196). European Alliance for Innovation.


Cite this article

Chang,Y. (2025). Comparative Analysis of Investment Opportunities in the Consumer Goods Industry: Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive, and Kimberly-Clark. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,145,103-110.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer/Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of ICFTBA 2024 Workshop: Human Capital Management in a Post-Covid World: Emerging Trends and Workplace Strategies

ISBN:978-1-83558-839-0(Print) / 978-1-83558-840-6(Online)
Editor: Ursula Faura-Martínez, An Nguyen
Conference website: https://2024.icftba.org/
Conference date: 4 December 2024
Series: Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences
Volume number: Vol.145
ISSN:2754-1169(Print) / 2754-1177(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

References

[1]. Abubakari, M. and Thuranira, B. (2021). The Consumer Goods Sector and the Sustainability Agenda in Ghana: A Review of Sustainability Commitments. Discover Sustainability, 2, 1-17.

[2]. Ibojo, B. O. and Esther, A. M. (2023). Effect of Training on Employees’ Quality of Work in Consumer Goods Firms: An Empirical Review. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research, 9(11), 111-125. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.56201/ijssmr.v9.no11.2023.pg111.125.

[3]. Sima, V., Gheorghe, I. G., Subić, J. and Nancu, D. (2020). Influences of the Industry 4.0 Revolution on the Human Capital Development and Consumer Behavior: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 12(10), 4035.

[4]. Procter & Gamble (P&G). (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://us.pg.com/annualreport2023/. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[5]. Unilever. (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.unilever.com/files/92ui5egz/production/b09c3510ee7cec58440d5f044f02bdefe85aa186.pdf. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[6]. Colgate-Palmolive. (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://investor.colgatepalmolive.com/financial-information/annual-reports. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[7]. Kimberly-Clark. (2023). Annual Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.kimberly-clark.com/-/media/kimberly/pdf/annual-report/kimberly-clark-2023-annual-report.pdf. (Accessed: 28 September 2024).

[8]. Yassen, S. T. and Alrefaee, S. A. S. (2022). The Effect of Financial Ratios on Bank Credit for a Sample of Iraqi Commercial Banks. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 1-12.

[9]. Mastuti, D. N., Widodo, R. E., Wijanarko, B., Purwoko, H. and Suhendra, A. (2024). Marketing of Management: Share Market, Potential Market, Competitor Business and Promotion (Literature Review). International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary, 3(2), 236-250.

[10]. Daugaard, D. and Ding, A. (2022). Global Drivers for ESG Performance: The Body of Knowledge. Sustainability, 14(4), 2322.

[11]. Asiyah, B. N., Huda, Q., Adlan, M. A., Aswad, M., Holle, M. H., Jamaludin, H. B. and Azira, S. N. (2024, June). Profitability Analysis of Coal Mining Companies Based on Indonesia Sharia Stock Index: A Review of Net Profit Margin, Total Asset Turnover and Company Size. In International Joint Conference/Seminar, 1(2), 13-30.

[12]. Desmon, A. R. W. A. and Meirinaldi, Y. C. (2022, January). The Effect of Return on Asset, Return on Equity and Debt to Equity Ratio on the Value of the Manufacturing Firm Listed on Stock Exchange 2015-2019. In MIC 2021: Proceedings of the First Multidiscipline International Conference, MIC 2021, October 30 2021, Jakarta, Indonesia (Vol. 196). European Alliance for Innovation.