Procter & Gamble (PG) announced August 1 that it was cutting as many as 100 brands over the next two years in an effort to simultaneously slim down while also providing greater focus to its top-performing brands. This process of bulking up and slimming down tends to go in cycles, and PG isn’t alone among blue-chip stocks currently looking to slim down.

Often the most difficult part of making these types of cuts isn’t which to let go but rather deciding those that should remain. It is for this very reason that companies undergoing huge restructurings can be the most volatile of investments because you won’t know exactly what you’ve got until well into the future.

Nonetheless, restructurings can make very compelling investments given the potential good that can come of them.

Here are three examples of blue-chip stocks operating in the consumer goods sector — all in the process of slimming down:

Blue-Chip Stocks — Procter & Gamble (PG)

As mentioned above, A.G. Lafley’s goal since returning to Procter & Gamble has been to simplify the business. First, Lafley sold off its pet care brands in April to Mars Inc. for $2.9 billion. Then came its most recent announcement. Over the next two years, you can expect all kinds of announcements about brand divestitures.

So, which are the most likely to go?

Well, Dr. Robert Passikoff, an expert in customer engagement and brand loyalty, believes that most of the brands sold will be what he calls “placeholders,” those businesses that have no differentiation or tangible difference with other brands in the same category. The 70 to 80 brands that remain generate 90% and 95% of its revenue and profits, respectively.

Take A quick look at its 2014 10-K and you can see where Lafley is likely going to strike first: Health Care. The reportable segment represents just 9% of revenue and net earnings from continuing operations. The billion-dollar brands in the health care segment include Crest, Oral-B and Vicks. It’s possible they’d consider selling Vicks because it doesn’t relate to the oral care business.

Other brands on the chopping block in the healthcare realm would include Metamucil, Tampax, and Pepto-Bismol. PG spent approximately $2.5 billion to acquire these three brands over the past 30 years; expect them to reap far more from any sale.

I’m thinking the “me-too” brands will also be shown the door. For example, Tide is its best selling laundry detergent. So why even bother trying to sell brands like Ace and Era globally, when Tide is already dominating global sales? You can find examples of these “me-too” brands in all its reportable segments.

A last possibility is Duracell, which generates a huge amount of revenue for PG, but sticks out like a sore thumb in its fabric care/home care segment. This one would bring big dollars, but is unlikely to be put on the block.

Blue-Chip Stocks — Nestle (NSRGY)

Nestle (NSRGY) has been in a big selloff since last October, when it came to the conclusion that its 8,000 brands is just too darn cumbersome. In reality, Nestle’s slim down makes PG’s efforts look like a walk in the park.

Where do you begin when you have so many brands?

I’m no expert when it comes to determining the optimum number of brands a large consumer goods company should have in its portfolio, but I don’t think it’s 8,000 … or even anywhere near that number. However, it’s worth mentioning that 45% of its sales come from emerging markets, which tend to support numerous smaller brands and not just one behemoth. So the large number of brands it supports in comparison to PG would seem to make some sense. But there’s still room to cut down.

Since deciding to its decision to unload some of its businesses, the biggest deal has been the sale of 8% of its stake in L’Oreal (LRLCY) for $8.9 billion — $4.64 billion in cash and L’Oreal’s 50% interest in its Galderma skincare joint venture — putting an end to the speculation that Nestle was interested in buying the French company outright. While it still holds 23% of LRLCY stock, the Bettencourt family clearly has the upper hand with 33% ownership.

Nestle’s most recent divestiture was its Juicy Juice brand, sold in July to private equity firm Brynwood Partners. Estimates put the sale price at no more than $200 million, which isn’t a whole lot for a company that generates $102 billion in annual revenue. With more than 20 brands selling more than $1.1 billion annually you can bet these billion-dollar brands, which include Stouffer’s, Lean Cuisine, Di Giorno and Coffee-Mate, won’t be going anywhere soon. That said, you can expect a lot a lot more to be kicked to the curb before this process ends.

At the end of the day, its 23% stake in L’Oreal is only going to get more valuable. Keeping it allows Nestle to make more changes without worrying about the short-term consequences. It’s a great luxury to have.

Blue-Chip Stocks — Unilever (UL)

It seems that blue-chip stocks with any kind of involvement in consumer goods are moving away from food and toward personal care.

Unilever (UL) is in the final stages of reshaping its portfolio of brands that has seen it divest no less than nine food-related businesses over the past three years in an effort to focus on areas such as personal care which have greater growth potential. Five years ago, Unilever generated 46% of its revenue from food; today that number has dropped to 36%, with personal care close at 33%.

Unilever has received $3.8 billion for divestitures consummated since 2012. Those funds will be reinvested in its highest-margin businesses, and although emerging markets are experiencing a slowdown that CEO Paul Polman suggests could last for years, it’s still where it expects to generate much of its growth in the coming years.

Unfortunately, weakening currencies in emerging markets have slashed almost $700 million in operating profits in the first half of 2014. Polman calls the economic backdrop so far in 2014, “as tough as we’ve faced in the last five years.”

UL stock will get past these economic headwinds in the long term, but in the interim they make investing in Unilever a difficult decision.

Click through to find out which of these blue-chip stocks are worth buying.

Blue-Chip Stocks — Bottom Line

Of the three blue-chip stocks making big divestitures, I’d have to say that Unilever is the least attractive of the three because it has finished reshaping its business; any benefit has already been priced in.

Of the remaining two, I’m torn over which stock I like better in this situation. If we’re just talking about betting on the transformations to come, PG is the better bet because nothing has been sold yet and everything is still conjecture. On the other hand, Nestle has that valuable stake in L’Oreal to benefit from regardless of what’s happening in the rest of its business.

At the end of the day, if I could only own one of the two blue-chip stocks, I’d have to go with Nestle because A.G. Lafley is only cleaning up the mess he himself made in his first go round as CEO. Lafley bought too many brands and now he’s forced to peel away the onion.

For me, Nestle is the one.

As of this writing, Will Ashworth did not own a position in any of the aforementioned securities.