By Pamela Wiseman, TFI Senior Operations/Supply-Chain Consultant
Until now many tech companies approached the warranty and product service parts of their business as a functional necessity –- far less glamorous than new-product development or even supply-chain management. But today’s industry leaders are finding new business reasons to strategically approach global service depots:
- profit
- competitive differentiation
- cost-effective logistics
- shorter response times
- environmental compliance
- reduction of cost of goods sold through reuse
- lower inventory levels
Better service is a path to higher revenues
I had a first-hand view of the significant business value of a top-notch service business in 1998 when, as Director of Field Service Operations for a company supporting printed-circuit-board assembly equipment, I observed that whereas customers interact closely with the sales team in the beginning of the relationship, the lasting impressions and loyal relationships are formed after the sale. Customer service is tantamount to gaining repeat sales and generating customer satisfaction. Even when faced with a significant quality issue, customers will remember how responsive the service was and how the issue was handled –- that is what makes the lasting impression.
Just how strategic was the service business? During the bubble of the late 1990s, my company’s reputation as premier provider of service had tangible value prompting customers to choose our products, often regardless of price and without sacrificing margin on spare parts. Other equipment providers made significantly less investment in 7×24 2-hour parts availability and quick-turn repairs, and their sales suffered.
Cross-functional, life-cycle strategies
Servicing equipment is yet another area where operations, manufacturing, supply chain, logistics, and environmental strategies come together into one strategic whole. Companies that are truly optimizing value across products’ life cycle incorporate design for service (DfS) in their new-product-development processes, requiring an intense cross-functional team approach and consideration of the business and marketing drivers throughout the product life cycle. Strategies deployed across the life cycle can match parts availability and even encourage customers to purchase the newest technology!
How You Can Engage
Currently, we at TFI are analyzing tech companies’ service-depot strategies and measures of success. We are documenting how companies determine and establish KPIs (key performance indicators) for service depots and the effectiveness of these measurements. We are weighing the relative merits of using numerous customer-focused depots, 3PL (third-party logistics) services, profit-and-loss or cost-center business models, service offerings (same day, 4-hour, etc.), and geographical preferences. Some metrics are related to inventory, turn-around time, customer satisfaction, and repair success.
If you are involved at a mid-sized electronics company in the areas of Customer Service, Spare Parts/Aftermarket and/or Support, then please talk to us. We will interview you by telephone (ensuring that your comments are not linked to your company) and send you a complimentary summary of aggregate positions and trends. Contact us today to schedule an interview.
It appears to me that there is a new wave of North American companies certifying to ISO 14001, the international standard for environmental management systems. To readers of TFI’s blog, “EMS” usually refers to Electronics Manufacturing Services, or contract manufacturers of electronic equipment. But now many of these same readers’ companies are engaged in the other EMS: implementing and certifying Environmental Management Systems.
ISO 14001 is certainly not new. As shown in TFI’s electronics-industry environmental timeline, as far back as 1996 North American companies were implementing environmental management systems and certifying to ISO 14001, driven largely by European corporate customers’ demands. Nearly all 17 electronics manufacturers profiled in my book Lean and Green had certified to ISO 14001 by the end of the 1990s — including Celestica, which was the first major electronics contract manufacturer to certify.
But until recently, most technology companies that do not manufacture hardware opted out of the ISO 14001 track. The position at many electronic-product companies with a 100% manufacturing-outsourcing strategy was, “Most of our contract manufacturers are certified, so we don’t need to be.” Most software companies — even many large ones — did not certify.
Why now are many non-manufacturing electronics companies and software firms opting in to creating an environmental management system and certifying to ISO 14001? It’s mainly because corporate customers not only in Europe and Japan but also in North America are starting to demand to see suppliers’ environmental programs, with a specified requirement or “bonus given” for ISO 14001 certification.
The good news is that if you have been creating and executing a strategic, profitable environmental roadmap at your company (like many of our clients do), you may be closer than you think to honing your processes and documentation resulting in an environmental management system that independent auditors will certify. And the requirements for non-manufacturers are, in some areas, lighter than for manufacturers. In fact, the process of certification will make your sustainability roadmap even more successful in terms of continually reduced environmental impact and more cost savings.
So, whether you work for an EMS or are writing an EMS, move steadily forward in certifying to ISO 14001. Life is better when you can reply to customers’ requests for proposals: “Yes, we are certified to ISO 14001.” (Hear about ISO 14001 and other voluntary and required environmental standards in the electronics industry at the April 7th Design-for-Environment Webinar.)
If your company has already been certified, what advice would you give to those companies considering or going for certification now? (Please reply below.)
If you work for an electronics product company, contract manufacturer, or component supplier, then you may ponder over which places in the world you should have your products made, or where you should establish manufacturing facilities or sales offices. Since I started tracking the electronics-manufacturing industry in 1985, I’ve witnessed mad dashes from one region to another: race from the USA to Mexico and to Scotland and Ireland. Afterward, flee from Mexico to China, grab lower-labor rates in Eastern Europe, then establish manufacturing in Vietnam. Later, it’s back to Mexico, build in India, then back to China, back to the USA, still in China. It’s quite the soap opera.
Here are some examples of electronics-manufacturing moves in recent history, by region:
Europe: Elcoteq opens a plant in Estonia, Nokia Siemens lays off 450 employees in Finland.
India: Jabil opens a plant in Chennai 2007; closes it in 2009.
North America: Celestica closes a plant in USA (Nashville); Foxconn expands in Mexico for Dell
China: CEC Telecom lays off a quarter of its China employees; Flextronics develops new facility in Suzhou (Wuzhong)
–Confused about which regions are hot and which are not? Let’s look at this strategically: in general, the hottest regions in which to manufacture are those where end customers reside. Regional manufacturing strategies can be best for bottom-line performance by allowing greater efficiencies in logistics, reducing costs and carbon emissions, decreasing supply-chain risk (through reduced lead times and improved responsiveness), and reducing total cost of ownership (when distance and risk overshadow lower labor rates).
Close-to-the-customer thinking also applies when the customers are product designers. It’s wise for electronics contract manufacturers to set up prototype facilities and for component companies to establish sales centers near electronic-product companies’ designers. (Our clients in sales and marketing have been trying to convince their management of this for years.)
In the mid-1990s when writing one of TFI’s Contract Manufacturing from a Global Perspective reports, my team and I debated whether Greenland would be the next hot region for electronics manufacturing. It was mostly in jest to underscore how far-flung manufacturing locations were becoming. Of course, with regional-manufacturing thinking, we don’t recommend setting up manufacturing in areas for only 55,000 potential customers (which is the population there).
What are your thoughts about regional manufacturing? Are you willing to eschew manufacturing where few if any customers reside?
by Kimberly Allen and Pamela J. Gordon
Many companies have begun working on environmental initiatives within their own four walls by increasing energy efficiency and reducing waste. It seems that everyone’s favorite these days is to remove single-use cups with forever-use ones. This internal focus is natural because it is where managers exert the most control, and it is where clear metrics can be established. (Let us know if you’d like to receive our new data supporting that ceramic cups are best for reducing costs and environmental impact.)
Going much deeper into the supply chain
But companies are interactive entities, part of a larger system. Sustainability managers quickly discover that fulfilling environmental objectives – especially in the areas of product design, distribution, or procurement – means working with suppliers and customers. A seemingly simple task such as reducing the packaging on a component can involve lengthy communications and negotiations with a surprising number of people both inside and outside the company. (We recently helped a client create an efficient packaging solution when the prior method used four times the packaging necessary!)
Sustainability in the supply chain is increasingly important because of regulations also. For instance, the REACH Directive requires companies to know (and register) the chemical contents of their products in far greater detail than ever before. They are reaching back into their supply chains for basic information, which can lead to collaborative product redesigns to avoid harmful chemicals.
Insights from the CDP
The folks at the Carbon Disclosure Project have been working to ease the transition to sustainable supply-chain operations by creating a network of member companies called the CDP Supply Chain. As stated in the flagship 2010 Supply Chain Report, “The CDP Supply Chain is a collaboration of global corporations who have extended their climate change and carbon management strategies beyond their direct corporate boundaries to engage with their suppliers via CDP’s annual Information Request. …This year, 44 member companies reached out to 1,402 of their suppliers, and 710 (51%) responded to the request.”
The report summarizes the findings. Members of the CDP Supply Chain are intent on reducing the carbon emissions from their supply chains, and are working on the challenges that currently hinder progress. Some challenges involve education of suppliers, who are generally at an earlier stage of sustainability planning than members; 56% intend to deselect suppliers who fail to meet carbon management criteria in the future. Some challenges will improve with clearer communication. Collaboration and sharing of best practices is a key priority at this time.
Although the CDP work involves manufacturing supply chains, there are other efforts afoot in the world of sustainable supply chains also. The first-ever Forest Footprint Disclosure report looked carefully at forest practices among companies in that industry. Ceres issued a report on corporate water-risk management based on disclosure data from 100 large companies. And other groups (ForestEthics, Earthworks, and OxFam America) are beginning to ask questions about “dirty resources” – raw materials like metals and minerals that are often acquired at considerable environmental and human expense.
Focus Questions for VP Operations & Supply Chain
TFI recommends that VP Operations / Supply Chain as well as Sustainability Executives ask themselves these five questions, toward creating supply-chain sustainability strategies:
o Where are the potential hot spots in our supply chain for illegal or unethical labor practices, or for irresponsible treatment of electronic waste (e-waste) and emissions to air, soil, or water?
o Which of my contract manufacturers (electronics manufacturing services (EMS) and original design manufacturers (ODM)) have made visible to us as much information about their suppliers’ labor and environmental practices as we need to reduce risk of being complicit in violations and bad publicity?
o Have we reduced the mass (weight, bill of materials, unnecessary components) of our products and packaging sufficiently for economic and environmental advantage, and which of our suppliers have been most proactive in this continuous Design-for-Environment (DfE) improvement?
o How are our internal supply-chain managers and buyers rewarded – through cost savings alone or also for reducing the company’s risk from associating ourselves with suppliers violating law or engaged in unethical labor and environmental practices?
o How many times do our products circle the globe from raw materials through product usage through end of life? Have we measured the wasted time, expense, CO2 emissions, and risk in transport, compared to a using a regional-manufacturing, logistics-efficient strategy?
How prepared are you to discuss these deeper levels of your supply chain? And what do you still need to understand in order to make it more sustainable?
by Nikki Pava, TFI’s newest consultant
Quite a few years ago I had the pleasure of living in Europe, Asia, and the United Arab Emirates. My work took me to the offices and boardrooms of some of the largest companies in the world, many with annual revenues larger than those of some countries.
Each day I interviewed managing directors and presidents about their company policies and economic outlook. Often, I was greatly impressed with their overall vision and their ability to lead large groups of people toward a common goal. However, in many cases I was disheartened at the responses from these business leaders when I asked about their company’s manufacturing policies — particularly the social and environmental elements. During the course of these visits, I also toured the factories, met with some of the workers, and analyzed the network of distributors, suppliers, retailers, and wholesalers that helped bring their products to market. Some companies implemented impeccable processes. Sadly, I also witnessed subpar standards that had me question many of these companies’ practices.
It was then that I realized that the best way for the world to change was for business to change. As a result, I began to direct all of my efforts and energy to create awareness for more sustainable business practices, including supply chains.
Since the days of my global CEO meetings and factory tours, I completed an MBA at the Presidio School of Management, a traditional business school that threads sustainable values into every aspect of the curriculum. Additionally, three years ago I co-founded a company called EcoTuesday, which brings sustainable business leaders together in cities across the USA. I now am honored to work with Fortune 500 companies, start-ups, and non-profit organizations by developing strategic plans and coordinating teams to reach specific, measurable goals. It’s great meeting more and more of TFI’s clients and witnessing their clear understanding between sustainable supply-chain practices and robust company performance.
My international business experience and the formal education I received at the Presidio have provided me with the tools needed to help TFI clients transform their businesses by increasing efficiency, decreasing waste, and saving money within all points of their supply chains. I look forward to using my skills and insights to support our clients in being financially successful and highly competitive in their industries. Additionally, it is important to me that all of our clients are in compliance with applicable product-and-manufacturing regulations and that all of their stakeholders are in alignment with the company’s vision.
Do you believe any business could truly transform without a thorough examination of its own supply chain? (Please reply at the bottom of the blog.)
By Pamela Wiseman, TFI Senior Operations / Supply Chain Consultant
Now that the economy is reportedly on the upswing, manufacturers are readying to boost production in anticipation of seeing business pick up. But operations executives are experiencing a chicken-and-egg situation concerning their fragile supply chains.
They ask, “How and when do we dip our toe in the water and expand capacity, labor, and inventory?” We know that whoever acts first may have an edge, but those acting too fast will suffer from anemic cash flow. And whoever acts last will miss the window and lose critical advantage. So, how does one “read the tea leaves” with confidence about an upswing in orders, and boost operations accordingly?
Crossed signals about when orders will pick up
Operations executives wonder, will the industry build and ship product “like we used to” or are today’s off-balance supply-and-demand conditions creating a lasting tug-of-war? It’s understandable why they are perplexed. Last week I read a difficult-to- believe study suggesting that 1 in 4 manufacturers felt no impact of the recession (I don’t know any of these manufacturers; do you?). The next article I read noted that unemployment rose in December in 43 USA states. I am an optimist, but even I am still compelled to be neutral at best about the pace of the recovery.
Lengthened lead times
One major risk lies with lengthening lead times. If no one is holding inventory, are we really working in an environment of cold starts–starting from scratch? Suppliers, OEMs, distributors…none is holding inventory that isn’t supported by a commitment, if they can help it. And what about the service parts on which customers depend — 24-hour turn-around promised with stocking levels based on past consumption? How do we walk this tightrope when consumption has been at an all-time low and could turn on a dime any minute now? I wrestle with these decisions every day.
Over the past year, sales-and-operations planning (S&OP) processes have been battered. What is a demand forecast anyway, when there is little certainty behind potential bookings figures? Pull systems, build-to-order, vendor-managed inventory – how do our lean-materials management systems work when no one will carry inventory and the demand is so uncertain? Ultimately, clients ask this key question: “Should we switch manufacturing strategies to buy-and-build-to-order instead of driving material to an S&OP build plan? If we buy-to-order to conserve our cash for actual customer orders, will our lead times grow and cause us to lose these same potential orders to a more aggressive or cash-rich competitor?”
The Best Counsel for Now
In my 20 years of operations management experience, I haven’t experienced such a “perfect storm” as we have now. But it actually creates a window of opportunity to gain insight enabling more certain decisions.
I see only one real answer: customers, OEMs and suppliers all need to work together as a united supply chain, sharing information to reduce risk more than ever to get through this transition period and prepare to take maximum advantage of an increase in business. And the “perfect storm” actually gives us greater opportunity than ever to gain inter-supply-chain-partner cooperation. We’ve found that right now in the business cycle, the best externally focused tool is plain and simple – increasing the level of direct communication with customers and suppliers and listening carefully for the clues.
We start internally — by helping our clients discern: Do they have significant numbers of customers and suppliers both on credit hold? Are they rationing cash? Is it possible that they, our client companies, may be on credit hold with some suppliers? And we immediately assemble a senior-executive-driven, cross-functional (comprising Sales, Operations (Manufacturing, Supply Chain), and Marketing) internal forum to drive S&OP process, balance risk, and make optimal choices right now. Then, talk more openly than ever with customers and suppliers, who themselves are needing insight just as much or more than your company does.
How is your company coping with supply-chain uncertainty? Would you be more willing than usual to engage in frank, cross-company discussions to strengthen supply-chain predictability?
By Jonathan Gilbert, TFI Logistics Consultant
2009 is finally over
It’s hard to imagine that we have been in the downturn long enough now that year-on-year measures are actually starting to look good in the transport sector. While demand shrank, deep capacity cuts in nearly all modes helped to prop up pricing as we closed out 2009 and moved into 2010. Despite these cuts, carrier profits remain dismally low, and in some sectors, non-existent. Ocean freight has been a particularly difficult market.
Quoted in Logistics Management, Edward Zaninelli, VP Transpacific westbound trade for ocean carrier Orient Overseas Container Line, says that “Revenue is below cost in all trade lanes, and the recovery is just beginning.” Another recent article in the Journal of Commerce stated that “The world’s top 22 ocean container carriers lost some $11 billion in the first nine months of [2009].”
Service and reliability implications
TFI’s forecast is for slowly improving market conditions; we see shippers being generally more optimistic about 2010 volumes. We expect that the gradual strengthening of economic fundamentals will continue through 2010. Unfortunately, these modest gains may not be enough to prop up all service providers. Similar situations exist in the domestic truckload and less-than-truckload markets, as well as in international airfreight. Some of the weaker players may not survive through this year.
Faced with these difficult market conditions, ocean carriers are using “slow steaming” operations as a way to constrain capacity and reduce operating costs. Rather than idling ships outright, carriers are opting to run certain lanes at reduced speeds to save on fuel and reduce costs. Others are avoiding expensive transits of the Panama Canal by steaming around Cape Horn.
Slow steaming can reduce operating costs by as much as 5% to 7%, but the increased transit time, as much as 33% longer, may be problematic for time-sensitive shippers.
Bottlenecks forecast
Improving economic conditions could lead to bottlenecks in transportation as constrained capacity and carrier bankruptcies collide with growing demand. Spot market container rates are rising quickly in some lanes, reflecting this shift in supply and demand balance. In fact, small shortages in ocean liner capacity occurred in late 2009 just before the holidays, and we expect this to recur in January/early February 2010, driven by preparations for Chinese New Year factory shutdowns.
What to do next
Proactive shippers are carefully watching their carriers and aligning with strong, well-financed partners in all transport modes. Savvy buyers are making the best of bad market conditions and getting good pricing where possible, while still managing risk.
To avoid supply-chain interruptions, supply-chain managers should proactively review ocean transit times and communicate changes inside their organizations. Slower ocean transit times also call for reassessing the cost of capital for in-transit inventories and reviewing the total cost differential between airfreight and ocean shipping options.
Finally, supply-chain managers should actively analyze transportation-related risks and develop contingency plans to deal with service interruptions due to ongoing carrier financial stress and/or upticks in demand.
What are you doing to manage risk, control costs, and drive transportation innovation at your company? Let us know if you are curious how TFI’s experts help clients improve supply chains and better manage transportation.
Let’s face it: changing organizations can be hard work. People with better ideas for achieving results face not only personal resistance to change but also sometimes a sluggish organizational pace. In my experience, the most competitive strategy for improving processes is to leap-frog from the status quo to four-to-five levels beyond. Here are some examples — the first from an electronics manufacturing services (EMS) company and the second from a name-brand electronics company (OEM).
Celestica, in response to the Montreal Protocol phasing out ozone-depleting substances was the first electronics contract manufacturer to leap-frog from cleaning printed-circuit-board assemblies with CFC (ozone-depleting) solvents to the no-clean process. In doing so, Celestica leaped over the aqueous-cleaning technique requiring costly capital equipment, floor space and power for the equipment, labor hours, and disposal of heavy-metal water with permits and treatments. I interviewed the parties responsible for this change a few years afterward (for my book Lean and Green: Profit for Your Workplace and the Environment), and the smarts behind the leap-frog move were motivated by environmental conservation and competitive savings of time, cost, real estate, and more.
HP, anteing up for a package-reduction challenge by Walmart, did not do as most of its competitors did — incrementally or even substantively reducing the size and weight of the packaging surrounding the products. One HP employee had the idea to make the packaging part of the product itself. The notebook computers, cables, and accessories were packed in attractive over-the-shoulder “messenger” bags — three to a cardboard shipping box without any other packaging material. In one fell swoop, this leap-frog move resulted in 97% reduction of packaging, conservation of fuel, and reduction of CO2 emissions by removing the equivalent of one out of every four trucks previously needed to deliver the notebooks to Walmart and Sam’s Clubs around the USA.
I encourage you to take advantage of the New Year to use leap-frog thinking — in your companies’ manufacturing strategies, supply-chain and logistics designs, Lean programs, sustainability programs, and every other aspect of your workplaces. Make it easier for yourself! Raise up your company’s efficacy 4-5 steps at once instead of inching upward — facing organizational resistance to change each time. Leave the arduous step-by-step improvements to your competitors, who will arrive at the finish line much later and with far more cost.
Will you face more organizational resistance to this one leap-frog improvement than to a more routine change? Perhaps yes. But if you are like me, one of the reasons you get up in the morning and head to your desk is to make your organization and the world better places.
Do you want to try on some leap-frog ideas with the TFI and TFI Environment consultants and/or community (reply below)?
by Pamela Wiseman
Senior Operations / Supply Chain Consultant
It’s typical during challenging economic times for corporate executives to focus internally — especially on costs and cash. Many subscribe to a survival plan mandating full attention to internal metrics, to the extent that they are more willing to play tug-of-war with customers to cut inventory, slow payments to suppliers, and protect cash. Plus, the executives find it even more difficult than usual to predict customers’ moves, so they focus on the internal metrics they can control. This is the way to survive, right?
Wrong answer! Putting the customer at the forefront and satisfying their requirements should never take the backseat to singular attention on internal operational metrics. The latter is surely the path to decline and gives an advantage to competitors who keep a steady eye on pleasing the customer.
In the electronics manufacturing services (EMS) business especially, it’s important to reflect regularly on the fact customers are never 100% dependent on your services. Having managed outsourced manufacturing for electronics companies for 9 years, and now managing TFI Customer Retention for Business Growth programs, I have seen first hand the end result of EMS companies who were inwardly focused.
One time, at an instrumentation OEM, we were counting on the quarterly cost-reduction program that our new EMS highly advertised would deliver savings. Their “aggressive cost-down program” was one of the reasons we had chosen them. After not receiving any updates early in the relationship, we quickly learned that the EMS was really working from a Pareto of ALL customer material spend, and our parts did not make their top 10%. As a result we were quite dissappointed and needed to micromanage the situation ourselves to get attention for our account.
When dissatisfied, the customer can switch to another EMS or even bring the manufacturing back under their direct control in-house. The only reason customers use the supplier’s services is to add more value than they can produce internally. So if suppliers do not proactively view customers’ operational challenges as their own, the suppliers get off track and miss key intelligence that will benefit their own bottom line.
I advise EMS clients to take a look at how they are working with customers. Are they… (1) Proactively collecting and analyzing quality data? (2) Continually looking for purchased-part cost reductions and sharing benefit? (3) Suggesting design and process changes to reduce cost? (4) Reinventing themselves to deliver more value to customers? Or, instead, are the suppliers causing customers pain with parts shortages, average or worse-than-average costs on materials, delivery snafus, poor inventory management, and other sub-par results? Of course, the EMS needs to make a profit, but if they are truly adding value, the profits and increased market share will follow.
We would never encourage an EMS management team to accept a customer’s rules and conditions that would critically deplete the EMS company’s margins. One of my program managers showed me a Service Level Agreement that outlined the amount of forecast change that the EMS could support. We knew that the EMS would end up holding inventory and would eventually try to back out. So, we revised the agreement to be more of a win-win. It’s always best when the EMS and OEM can donate resources to a project team and build a sense of team spirit.
But I remind our EMS clients that their companies exist for one reason only: making customers more competitive and successful than they would be without them. Metrics should be aligned to eliminate debate. Strong open communication is key. Adding value, both strategically and tactically, and being proactive — soliciting feedback and suggesting where to team will — sets suppliers apart. EMS companies that strongly enable customers to reach higher levels of performance in quality, cost, and delivery for the benefit of their mutual ultimate end customer, can parry other EMS companies out of the way.
What have you done for customers lately?
You’d think that for-profit corporations’ chief financial officers might be the last ones to endorse company-wide strategies for reducing environment impact. Wrong.
When the CFO at furnishings company Herman Miller became the CEO, the director of Environment, Health, and Safety Paul Murray felt nervous. Murray had convinced the CFO to allocate $40,000/month to invest in resource efficiencies for the company. When Brian Walker moved from CFO to CEO, he asked to meet with Murray. At that point, Murray feared that a CFO-turned-CEO would nix the investment altogether. To Murray’s surprise and relief, Walker suggested increasing the monthly investment to $50,000! Walker explained that while he was CFO he witnessed that the return on investment (ROI) from the environmental investments was simply excellent. In fact, Herman Miller ($2 billion in revenues) not only makes smart investments to reduce its own environmental footprint, but also the company is a design-for-environment leader for office chairs (I’m sitting on one) and other furnishings, and – through subsidiary Convia, Inc. — helps to reduce energy consumption of customers’ buildings with energy-management tools. CEO Walker says, “Sustainability is becoming as prevalent in customer requirements as quality was 10 or 15 years ago, and we’re at the tipping point of this movement where our customers, at least, are no longer saying it’s nice to know you do it. It’s a requirement” (Industry Week, Sep. 2009, p. 24). By the way, 20% of Walker’s compensation is based on the company’s environmental performance.
Last month, a CFO-turned-CEO at a TFI electronics-company client reviewed the High-ROI Environmental Roadmap we had prepared in concert with a multifunctional green team. The roadmap listed a half-dozen Lean and Green initiatives along with their financial and environmental benefits (cost reductions, new revenue, carbon emission reductions, and less use of paper, water, and energy). From reviewing both the environmental and financial ROI, the CEO’s response was immediate: he said he’s one-hundred percent behind one-hundred percent of the projects as outlined.
Another high-tech company CFO (not yet a CEO!) uses his sharp focus on ROI to support his company’s environmental program, with this advice: Determine priorities for the environmental initiatives according to greatest reduction of environment impact and the highest monetary ROI. For example, if you had $500,000 to spend, what projects would you choose to most efficiently maximize the environmental and monetary savings? “It’s important to prioritize in this way,” he said, “because the environmental program could be one of 50 initiatives all fighting with each other for resources. List the overhead, capital, and expense investments separately. Get on the executive agenda and carve out the initiative — just like any other business function.” The CFO added that environmental programs – like training – need to be elevated to the executive level for planned investments, because they span all company departments; the executive staff needs to dedicate funding to be appropriated to the departmental budgets in a way in which the funds cannot be “cannibalized.”
So, if you are running (or starting) your company’s strategic environmental initiatives, don’t tippy-toe around your CFO. Enlist him or her in sharpening the ROI and advocating in the executive suites for these surprisingly large-return programs.
All CFOs (and other financially-minded) readers are welcome to weigh in. (Leave a reply at the bottom of the blog.)
Contact TFI | 2000 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 USA. Phone 1-510-601-9107
Copyright © 2009 Technology Forecasters, Inc., all rights reserved. | 
RSS Feed | Friday Best of Blogs
