address a number of their own needs such as client win and retention, differentiation and so on. The following are three examples of the “hidden” costs of cleaning. one rack of dishware was: Labor Mechanical Breakages Energy Chemicals Water 50 percent 19 percent 11 percent 11 percent 6 percent 3 percent Again, independent studies have shown that the increase in energy requirement var-ies depending on scale thickness as follows: Scale Thickness 1.5 mm 3.0 mm 6.0 mm 9.5 mm 13.0 mm Increased Fuel Requirement 15 percent 25 percent 40 percent 55 percent 70 percent Productivity A study of contract cleaning in the U.K. determined that the proportional costs of a facility services provider, on average, were: Labor Overheads Profit Management Equipment Cleaning Materials Training Personal Protective Equipment 70 percent 14.5 percent 7 percent 4 percent 4 percent 3.25 percent 1.75 percent 0.7 percent Again, these proportions will vary from site to site and country to country, but direc-tionally are the correct orders of magnitude. Assuming these numbers to be accurate, and the average cost of chemicals per rack to be 4 cents, then the total cost of washing one rack of dishware is: Chemicals Labor Mechanical Breakages Energy Water Total 4 cents 33 cents 13 cents 7 cents 7 cents 2 cents 66 cents Obviously, the numbers will vary from provider to provider, country to country, but what is true is the cost of labor is measured in the tens of percent while the costs for chemicals and machines are in single digits. Assuming the above number to be a fair reflection of the proportional costs, then for every $1,000 spent, approximately $700 will be on labor, in the order of $17 on chemicals and around $30 on equipment. Even doubling the chemical spend would be more than compensated for by a modest 2.5 percent improvement in productivity. The main problem is capturing any pro-ductivity improvements. Let’s say a new product improves pro-ductivity by 16.7 percent, how does the contractor save 16.7 percent of one person by introducing the product? Unless the contractor can amend the hours worked, or move from say seven workers to six, they cannot readily capture the financial benefits directly. However, this 16.7 percent gain in time (equivalent to 3½ hours for every 20 hours worked) can be used for detail work, extra tasks, deep cleaning, periodic tasks, etc., which would contribute to client win and retention, quality, etc. Consequently, every rack of dishware that is “needlessly” rewashed costs approxi-mately 66 cents as well as the environmental impacts of energy, water and chemicals. A buyer that wants to save 25 percent on chemical costs by reducing the amount of products dosed, reducing the quality of the products or using a supplier that does not offer training of employees or servicing of the dosing unit, will save 1 cent per rack, but put at risk 65 cents for chemicals, energy, water, breakages, etc. While 65 cents may not seem like a lot, for every five racks that have to be rewashed per day, per facility across a chain of 50 facilities, open six days per week, 52 weeks per year will cost that chain every year approximately: ■ $50,700 ■ Over 92,700 gallons of water ■ 24,500 kWh of electricity ■ 11,000 kg of CO 2 . Hard Water Scale Linked to the example above, but also appropriate to other applications, is the impact of hard water scale on heating. Hard water scale significantly increases the amount of energy required to heat water to a given temperature. Dishwasher Racks As another example, an independent study of the costs of machine dishwashing identi-fied that the proportional costs of washing The cost of fuel varies by type and from country to country, but assuming the water is heated by electricity and costs 10 cents per kWh, an organization with 100 sites heating approximately 53 gallons of water per day, five days per week, 50 weeks per year, at each site for, say a dishwasher, in boilers having an average scale thickness of 3 mm, they will incur additional costs of: ■ $8,723 ■ 87,225 kWh of electricity ■ 39,251 kg CO 2 . A buyer wishing to save money on water softening or dishwasher detergents through inferior products or lower concentrations that cannot adequately prevent the scale, puts at risk significant financial and environ-mental impacts. Moreover, controlling the scale with suit-able products will also have a number of additional economic and environmental benefits including: ■ Reduced need for rewashing ■ Improved productivity ■ Improved durability of the dishwasher ■ Fewer breakdowns ■ No requirement for descalers – chemi-cals, transportation, storage, packaging, training, risk assessments, downtime, water, energy, health and safety, etc. ■ Improved customer perception. These are just three examples where short-term gains on chemical prices can have a significant long-term impact on the environment, and economically on the orga-nization as a whole. There is always a cheaper product, but it’s the real and perceived value that a product or service brings to an organization that is the true measure of sustainability. Remember, sustainability is a balance of planet, people and profit. CM www.cmmonline.com 27
CMM – Archives August 2013: 27
