As Nissan and BMW have shown, decisions made in the past aren't set in stone (yes, there was a subtext 
) and are easily changed subsequently, if conditions change. So I don't really see much in a single companies position - Unilever - that means much more in a wider sense.
Better not mention that to the Brexiteers. They don't like to be reminded that all decisions can be changed for some reason. Larks tongues in aspic and all.
With that nod to Excalibur/Caliburn (and who remembers in the myths that Merlin said Arthur was a fool for thinking Excalibur was the prize, when in reality it was Excaliburs scabbard which was the real prize ????), a while back, the ever genial Francis Pryor was part of a programme investigating the Arthurian myth, and he noted that if historians had actually made the effort to see a bronze sword being cast, they'd be a little less puzzled as to the origins of the myth. (He's often noted that there's an awful lot in history presumed and supposed without actually doing ... he took up sheep farming to prove a point that had been dismissed academically. He proved it by example.)
In a society where smiths were already treated with suspicion/reverence/respect (smelting metal being a magical process to the average person) then the act of pulling a flaming (because the slag catches fire and burns brightly) sword from a mould, and immediately quenching it in water would most likely look - to a bystander - as if a burning sword had been pulled from the water.
Obviously any decent smith would use a lake if he worked near one.
(There's also the fascination our forebears had with water/land boundaries, and the deliberately placement of votive offerings; new -but broken - near the waters edge).
Maybe I should have done ANLM at Uni ? Instead I just devoured most tellings of Morte d'Arthur from Monmouth onwards. Including the Avalon Chronicles - a slightly feminist retelling by Marion Bradley Zimmer.
Of course, Arthur would have been a remainer, without doubt ....