2013 manufacturing trends survey

7/30/2019 2013 Manufacturing Trends Survey

1/12

Labor, not Energy,the Concern in 2013

FOOD PROCESSING MAGAZINES ANNUAL MANUFACTURING TRENDS SURVEY2013


2/12

2 Labor, not Energy, the Concern in 2013

Table of contents

1 Cover story

3 Dealing with uncertainty in 2013

4 Protecting your data in a

mobile world

7 Managing ingredient supply

and pricing with predictive analytics

8 Tax and strategic considerations

you need to know about

health care reform


3/12

Labor, not Energy, the Concern in 2013 1

David Phillips, Plant Operations Editor,

Food ProcessingMagazine

Labor issues are of greater concern to

food manufacturers as they enter 2013

but not as important as cost control and

food safety while worries about energy

cost escalation have all but disappeared

(that was a surprise). Manufacturers are a

bit less optimistic than they were at this

time last year (or in the past three years,

for that matter).

Yet more plant operations executives

foresee production increases of 20

percent or more and additions to theirworkforces.

Those are some of the results of

FOOD PROCESSINGS 12th annual

Manufacturing Trends Survey. Invitations

went out in November for the web-based

survey. We had 249 total respondents,

up from 205 last year.

Cover story

While economic uncertainty remains, respondents expectmore growth while continuing to emphasize food safety.

Figure 1: Manufacturing priorities for 2013*

First-place

votes

Rating avg. Rating avg.

last year

Food safety 59% 8.2 8.2

Cost control 27% 7.4 7.6

Labor 11% 6.3 6.3

Inspections/certifications 10% 5.9 6.3

Sourcing & materials 10% 6.4 6.7

Automation 9% 5.1 5.5

Water issues 7% 5.1 4.9

Environmental concerns 6% 5.6 5.9

Consolidation challenges 6% 4.4 4.7

Energy concerns 4% 5.7 6.2

*Respondents were able to select more than one answer.


4/12


Instead, labor moved up to third place

with 11 percent, about the same as last

year. Sourcing and materials also won a

10 percent vote (totals exceed 100 percent

because respondents could select more

than one top priority).

Energy concerns recorded the biggest

drop in first-place votes, from seventhplace to dead last (10th) in the rankings

this year although it had higher second,

third, etc. votes than most other concerns.

So using a weighted scoring method, its

5.7 point score was in sixth place, higher

than environmental concerns, automation,

water issues and consolidation challenges.

But still lower than its overall ranking

last year.

We also asked voters to tell us about

major concerns they did not find in

our top 10 list. Among the responseswere issues such as accurate forecasting

for expansion, commodity price

volatility, availability of raw materials,

transportation costs, matching capacity

with demand and implementing lean

manufacturing. The Food Safety

Modernization Act also was a concern

for lack of clarity in what the regulations

will require and how some companies are

anticipating and reacting to that lack of

clarity. Another food processor pointed

to the weather: Our biggest concern now

is the effect of the Midwest drought and

how that will affect supply and price of

our ingredients.

A long way to go?

We reworded our question about

dealing with the economy (Figure 2).

Last year we asked only if you were

growing (45 percent said yes). This year,

we split that response and found

12 percent growing fast and another47 percent growing slowly that adds

up to 59 percent growing at least some.

However, approximately 26 percent were

turning to staff reductions and salary

cuts to deal with the lingering difficulties,

and more than 12 percent indicated plant

closings and consolidations. About

10 percent were outsourcing to save money.

Safety first

Each year the survey asks food processors

to rank 10 pre-selected major concerns.

As has always been the case, food safety

ranks No. 1. This year 59 percent of

respondents indicated this was their most

important concern, up slightly from

53 percent last year. No surprise really,

when one considers the catastrophic

results of not prioritizing food safety.

In second place for the second year are

cost issues, with 27 percent naming it their

top concern for the year (down 3 points

from last year).

Whats more interesting is how ourrespondents rank the other eight concerns.

Last year, inspections and certifications

came in third with 21 percent of the

vote, but this year that vote fell to

10 percent apparently most

companies earned their Global Food

Safety Initiative certificates last year.

The Food Safety Modernization Act also was a concernfor lack of clarity in what the regulations will require and

how some companies are anticipating and reacting to thatlack of clarity.

Figure 2: How is your company dealing with the economy?

Were growing slowly

No great changes

Staff reductions and/or salary cuts

Adding headcount and/or new lines

Closing plants/consolidating

Were growing fast

Other

Outsourcing to U.S. or Canadian

contract manufacturers

Outsourcing to overseas manufacturers

47.3%

29.6%

26.3%

19.3%

12.8%

11.9%

10.7%

5.4%

4.5%


5/12


Dealing with uncertaintyin 2013Dexter Manning, Partner, National Food and Beverage

Practice Leader, Grant Thornton LLP

The results are in for the 2013 Food

Manufacturing Trends Surveyand

its no surprise that food safety is still

the number one concern among food

manufacturers, followed closely by costcontrol. In fact, 72% of respondents to

the survey indicated that their company

had implemented new food safety

processes in 2012, likely in response to

the looming requirements of the Food

Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Cost

control, however, may prove harder to

tackle. Continued volatility of ingredient

prices, changing weather patterns and still

more governmental regulations, such as

changes to employee benefit plans based

on the Affordable Care Act, and new orimpending income tax laws, continue to

drive costs upward. Manufacturers are

awash in uncertainties heading into

2013, yet still are managing to wade

through them.

Uncertainty is the elephant in the

room whether about FSMA, the

financial toll from health care reform

provisions, commodity price volatility,

severe weather or any number of

other concerns.

The 2012 drought in the Midwest

wreaked havoc on commodity prices

and an already volatile market for

ingredients.

Other issues on their minds include

changing demographics in the U.S.,

soaring demand for raw materials in

emerging markets, rising energy prices

and the uncertain state of the economy

at home and abroad. Most, if not all, of

these uncertainties have a direct impact on

manufacturers bottom-line profitability.

Focusing on core competencies

The net result is that prudent leaders

are exercising more caution in 2013.

While most of the respondents expressed

optimism about 2013 (60%), slightly

fewer were optimistic than the prior

year (63%). This cautious optimism

translates into a more strategic approach

to business. While a focus on cost control

and lean processes have remained par

for the course since the beginning of the

last recession, there is little excess left to

trim. Consequently, many companiesare taking a hard look at their businesses

core competencies and shedding unrelated

or nonstrategic business units as part of

their cost-control plans.

Embracing mobile technologies

Historically, technology has contributed

to the demise of some businesses and

the success of others. Expect the same

for 2013 and beyond. Consumers

continue to embrace technology-

enhanced shopping, and some food andbeverage manufacturers have caught

on. A growing number of consumers

are using smartphones and tablets for

price comparisons, coupons, recipes,

to review quick response (QR) codes,

food blogs and, an emerging trend, to

make their payments. Some smartphones

network with kitchen appliances to

allow consumers to do everything from

turning on these appliances to checking

the contents of their refrigerators. Easy to

use apps are helping people eat healthier,

simplify meal planning, and make in-store

decisions about the food they buy. Food

and beverage manufacturers need to have

a mobile strategy, and it needs to address

the new risks that come with the territory.

Connecting with customers via

social media

Food and beverage manufacturers are

using social media in new and creative

ways to create a dialogue with their

customers. The information gleaned

from these customer interactions, in

turn, helps manufacturers create and

market innovative products that satisfy

the ever-changing market. But socialmedia, too, is not without its risks, and

manufacturers are becoming more savvy

about implementing controls and policies

for their social media efforts.

Amid the uncertainties, one thing is

certain. If manufacturers plan to continue

to thrive in this environment, they must

become more flexible and dynamic to

adjust to the rising uncertainties in the

economy and marketplace.

Historically, technologyhas contributed to thedemise of some businessesand the success of others.Expect the same for2013 and beyond.


6/12


Anthony J. Hernandez, Principal, Business

Advisory Services, IT Strategy and Risk Management,

Grant Thornton LLP

Mobile devices are taking over the planet.

According to a 2013 Cisco report, there

will be more mobile devices than the

seven billion people who inhabit the earth

by year-end.1 Whats more, the report

predicts there will be a staggering

10 billion mobile devices by 2017.2

Indeed, an entire global generation

Millennials communicates primarilythrough a combination of mobile devices

and social media. In keeping with the

times, 71% of companies are considering

custom mobile apps, according to

Symantecs 2012 State of Mobility Survey.

And one in three enterprises is actively

rolling out a mobile app or already has

done so.3 Many forward-thinking food

manufacturers are on top of this trend

and already interacting with customers

via mobile apps which include videos,

location-aware coupons, promotionalannouncements and loyalty programs.

Moreover, a growing number of food

manufacturers are turning to enterprise-

connected mobile devices to provide

insight into business operations, boost

productivity and achieve new efficiencies.

Enterprise mobile apps offer the ability to

track real-time inventory, gain visibility

into factory-floor operations, and monitor

sales and operations performance. A

Motorola survey of mobile technologies

found that manufacturers saved a daily

average of 42 minutes per employee by

using mobile apps.4

Devices breed data risks

Enterprise mobile security, however, is

a different story. Many companies are

paying insufficient attention to this critical

business factor. A Ponemon Institute

survey showed that 51% of surveyed

companies experienced a data breach due

to insecure mobile devices.5 With the

explosive increase in corporate mobile

device use, there is a commensurate

increase in sensitive data residing in

employee smartphones, tablets, USBdrives and other apparatuses.

In addition to e-mail, voicemail, location

information and documents, there may

be credentials to access enterprise

applications and other confidential

information on devices.

Yet, many employees arent accustomed

to protecting their devices. Unfortunately,

lost or stolen smart phones and tablets

are not unusual.

Poor risk awareness

Adding to the problem is the fact that

most consumers and enterprises do not

take the time to regularly patch or update

their smartphones and tablets, increasing

their risk exposure. Cyber attacks have

become more frequent and sophisticated,

coming from diverse sources such as

SMS, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, infra-red, USB,

Web browsers and mobile platforms.

For example, people need to beware

of free charging kiosks at airports that

enable users to plug a USB cable into their

mobile devices. These unknown tools can

easily be configured to read or remove

data from devices and even upload viruses

or malware.

To bring or not to bring

Every manufacturer needs to address

the bring-your-own-device (BYOD)

to work trend, which can be good forproductivity but add complexity to

data security. Managing a mix of mobile

device platforms Blackberry, iPhone

and Android, among others is more

complicated for IT, and users often

inadvertently circumvent security

policies. If employers decide to adopt a

BYOD approach, they need to establish

clear policies and implement IT security

controls to protect their data and

their network.

As more food manufacturers turn to

enterprise mobile technologies to connect

with customers, achieve efficiencies

and gain visibility into operations, they

need to continually assess the security

implications of their technology and

mitigate risks accordingly. An effective

enterprise solution will address a range

of device types, integrate seamlessly with

manufacturers existing systems, and

most importantly keep sensitive data

safe and sound.

1 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 20122017, Feb. 6, 2013.

www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.html2Ibid.3 2012 State of Mobility Survey, Symantec, 2012. www.symantec.com/about/news/resources/press_kits/detail.jsp?pkid=state-of-mobility-survey4 Lane, Brian. Manufacturing goes mobile, http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/07/24/manufacturing-goes-mobile/5 Global Study on Mobility Risks, Ponemon Institute, Feb. 2012. www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/Websense_Mobility_US_Final.pdf

Protecting your datain a mobile world
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.htmlhttp://www.symantec.com/about/news/resources/press_kits/detail.jsp?pkid=state-of-mobility-surveyhttp://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/07/24/manufacturing-goes-mobile/http://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/Websense_Mobility_US_Final.pdfhttp://www.ponemon.org/local/upload/file/Websense_Mobility_US_Final.pdfhttp://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/07/24/manufacturing-goes-mobile/http://www.symantec.com/about/news/resources/press_kits/detail.jsp?pkid=state-of-mobility-surveyhttp://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.html


7/12


Figure 3:

In 2013, does your facility plan to?*

Maintain staffing level 41%

Add to the

workforce 36.8%

Passively reduce workforce

(i.e. through attrition) 9.6%

Dont know 7.5%

Actively reduce workforce 5.0%

Figure 4:

Do you anticipate your plants production in 2013 to:*

Increase 20% or more 18.5%

Increase 1019% 21.8%

Increase 29% 31.7%

Stay about the same 20.2%

Decrease 29% 3.7%

Decrease 1019% 1.7%

Decrease 20% or more 2.5%

Figure 5:

For 2013, is your whole company planning to:*

Stay the same 46.9%

Expand production/

number of manufacturing

plants 32.5%

Consolidate production/

number of manufacturing

plants 11.9%

Dont know 8.6%

Figure 6:How do you feel going into 2013?*

Optimistic 60.1%

Neutral/Im not sure 25.1%

Pessimistic 14.8%

Looking forward with Figure 3, most

of those who took the survey said they

expect to add to their employee ranks

(nearly 37 percent) or maintain staff levels

(41 percent), compared to around

15 percent who plan to further reducestaffing either actively or passively.

That compares favorably with last year,

when 18 percent were bracing for staff

reductions and just 28 percent had

planned on new hires.

Asked about plant production

forecasts for 2013 (Figure 4), 19 percent

foresee increases of 20 percent or more,

up significantly from 11 percent last year

and 16 percent the year before. Altogether,

72 percent expect at least some increase

in production at their own facility this

year within a percentage point of last

year while only 7.9 percent are planning

for a decrease.

When asked about the production

outlook for their entire company

(Figure 5), 32.5 percent of respondents

expect their company to expand the

number of manufacturing facilities this

year, up significantly from 23 percent

the year prior. Just 12 percent (roughly

matching last years number) said theyexpect their companies to consolidate

this year.

While these numbers are encouraging,

respondents were cautious about their

optimism (Figure 6). When asked How

do you feel going into 2013? only

60 percent expressed optimism, down

from 63 percent last year and 66 percent

in both 2011 and 2010.

As for salaries, just 4 percent of those

surveyed anticipate a decrease, while

41 percent expect salaries to increase.

A year ago, a similar number planned on

payroll increases but a higher percentage

(5.6 percent) expected to trim salaries.Capital spending may be in for a

drop in 2013. Thirty-five percent of

respondents said they will spend more

this year than they did in 2012, whereas

47 percent expected to spend more last

year at this time. This year 10 percent

have trimmed their CapEx budget by

some measure.

Also, 35 percent report they have

delayed capital spending projects in the

past year due to the economy. That is

up from 32 percent a year ago, but notas drastic as 2011, when a full 45 percent

hit the brakes on capital projects. This

years respondents listed a variety of

project types they hope to tackle in

2013, including warehouses, production

and packaging expansions, a new plant

in Kentucky, updated manufacturing

software and adding automation in

warehousing, production and throughout

the plant.

When asked How do you feel goinginto 2013? only 60 percent expressed

optimism, down from 63 percentlast year and 66 percent in both2011 and 2010.

*Responses may not equal 100% due to rounding.


8/12


Knowing that food safety is the top

priority among food companies, we also

asked some questions about what steps

processors are taking to protect against

incidents and to verify compliance with

food safety regulations.

Of those surveyed, 72 percent indicated

they implemented new food safety

measures in 2012. That reflects a slight

up-tick in implementation compared to

the year prior when 70 percent said theyhad taken food safety measures in 2011.

Nearly 70 percent say they will launch

new food safety initiatives this year, up

2 points from last year (Figure 7).

Employee training and third-party

certification remain the two top steps

food processors are taking to improve

food safety. Those two also topped

the list in 2012.

Respondents were allowed to listmultiple approaches, and 69 percent

mentioned employee training this year,

while 47 percent planned for third-party

certification. HACCP plans are in use

or in the works for 39 percent of survey-

takers this year, compared to 46 percent

of those who answered the question last

year thats kind of odd.

Speaking of certification, we asked

participants to name which certifications

they were involved with. The top answer

remains Safe Quality Food, which was

noted by 49 percent of respondents this

year, up from 40 percent in the 2012

survey. The British Retail Consortium

program was second this year with 22

percent, 1 point down from last year.

Automation has changed food

manufacturing substantially in recentyears. This year, 17.4 percent said the

entire plant is automated, nearly

49 percent said production is highly

automated (less than the 54 percent

answering that way in the year prior)

and 35 percent indicated their packaging

areas were stocked with robotics. Nearly

16 percent of survey respondents said

they still have no automation in their

food plants (Figure 8).

Figure 7:

Will you implement new food safety measures in 2013?

Yes 69.1%

Dont know 16.9%No 14.0%

Figure 8: What portion of your plant has been automated?

Production sections

Packaging sections

All or most of the plant

None

Warehousing

Entire production line

Maintenance, repair & operations

Other

48.6%

34.9%

17.4%

15.8%

10.4%

9.1%

5.0%

5.0%

*Respondents were able to select more than one answer.

Nearly 16percent of surveyrespondents saidthey still haveno automation in

their food plants


9/12


Steve Lyman, Managing Director, Business Advisory

Services, Grant Thornton LLP

Global increases and volatility in

ingredient pricing are wreaking havoc on

the profit margins of food manufacturers.

Unfortunately, processors may be looking

at deepening distress as agricultural

turmoil from droughts, fires, floods,

freezes and blights is driving prices

sharply upward.

Adding to the pain are growing

speculation on commodities, surging

populations and increasing per capita

consumption in such countries as China

and India, as well as rising fuel prices.

Widespread concerns have turned

some manufacturers notably, a

number of the bigger players to

predictive analytics. Described by some

as forecasting on steroids, predictive

analytics uses data to predict the

likelihood of future events and help

manufacturers plan for them. Companies

are using the tool to understand how a

number of factors (e.g., weather, natural

disasters, legal and regulatory impacts,civil unrest) can impact ingredient supply

availability and costs.

The data can help identify effective

mitigation strategies to address possible

disruptive events. For example, a

manufacturer might seek different

suppliers if civil unrest is threatening

a particular region or develop hedging

strategies to manage costs where drought

is occurring.

In addition, predictive analytics is

valuable in forecasting customer trends.

It is thought of primarily in terms of

customer behavior and revenue growth.

But there is significant opportunity on the

supply side to better understand cost and

supplier behavior, and to give companies

better data for leverage with suppliers.

Consider the Super Bowl chicken

wing shortage of 2013. Drought in the

Midwest impacted crop prices, as did the

uptick in demand for ethanol driven

in part by the EPA Renewable Fuel

Standard. These factors drove up

chicken feed prices, which resulted in

less farming of chickens and/or higher

prices for chicken and wings.6 Prices

for whole chickens were 21% higher

in December 2012 than a year earlier,

according to the U.S. Department ofAgricultures Livestock, Dairy &

Poultry Outlook report.7

The long and short of it is that

companies need to understand everything

they can about their supply chains:

Who are their suppliers suppliers?

Where are they located?

What are the factors that drive their

supply and pricing?

What risks are they facing?

Too many companies are depending

on historical data and trends to manage

their business, while not paying

enough attention to the future. This is

at a time when unpredictable weather,

growing demand, increasing and volatile

commodity prices, surging fuel costs, and

myriad other factors are eroding profits.

Fundamental laws of economics are

at work. With no relief in sight, food

and beverage companies that do not take

immediate action will continue to see

profit margins shrink.

While larger food processorshave been among thefirst to adopt predictive

analytics, all industry-related companies ultimatelywill need to do so toremain competitive.

6 Yglesias, Matthew, The Great Chicken Wing Shortage of 2013, Slate, Feb. 1, 2013.

www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/02/chicken_wing_shortage_drought_ethanol_standards_and_expensive_corn_have.html7Ibid.

Managing ingredientsupply and pricing withpredictive analytics
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/02/chicken_wing_shortage_drought_ethanol_standards_and_expensive_corn_have.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/02/chicken_wing_shortage_drought_ethanol_standards_and_expensive_corn_have.html


10/12


Ken Cameron, Director, Compensation and Benefits,

Grant Thornton LLP; and

Mark Ritter, Managing Director, Compensation and Benefits,

Grant Thornton LLP

According to a study by Market Strategies

International, up to 60% of employers

in the United States were waiting for

the outcome of the 2012 presidentialelection before preparing to respond to

requirements of the Patient Protection

and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Those employers now need to move

quickly to manage this new business risk.

Even though many of the taxes imposed

for noncompliance with the PPACA go

into effect in 2014, employers who wait

until later in 2013 to respond may risk

increased costs of compliance.

This is particularly true for industries

that employ seasonal or part-time

workers because many of the penalties

and taxes are computed by multiplying

a tax rate times the number of full

time employees. Contributing to the

confusion is the fact that regulations

defining the term are extremely complex

and can be difficult to apply to a

particular work force.

Following are four significant types of

fees, taxes and penalties which employersneed to know:8

PCOR funding fee

This fee is assessed against all health

insurers including self-funded

employer health care plans to fund the

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Institute, which was created by PPACA

to perform comparative effectiveness

research on medical treatment outcomes.

The initial annual fee is $1 per covered

life (including employees and their

participating dependents) for plan years

ending between Oct. 1, 2012, and

Sept. 30, 2013. The fee increases to

$2 per covered life for plan years ending

between Oct. 1, 2013, and Sept. 30, 2014,

and is indexed for inflation thereafter.

Action: If you have a self-funded

health plan, you should prepare to

comply with the first filing deadline

of July 31, 2013. For fully insured plans,

the insurance carrier computes and

remits this fee.

Increased Medicare taxes on

high-income earners

Beginning in 2013, individuals who earn

more than $200,000 in taxable income

($250,000 where filing jointly) are

subject to an increase in their share of

the Medicare tax, from 1.45% to 2.35%.

While the employers matching Medicaretax remains at 1.45%, employers who

fail to withhold and remit the employees

increased Medicare tax may be subject to

penalties and interest.

Action: Confirm now that your

payroll processing area (or payroll

vendor) has updated the payroll system

so the correct amount of Medicare tax

will be withheld and remitted to the IRS.

Transitional reinsurance fee

Beginning in 2014, employers must pay a

transitional reinsurance fee to help offset

the impact of high-cost enrollees who

obtain health insurance. This fee will be

assessed annually for a three-year period.

The fee will be computed based on the

number of covered lives (employees and

dependents), but the amount per covered

life is not yet set for 2014.

Action: Take steps during 2013 to

ensure that the count of covered lives,

as defined under the regulations, can be

prepared and submitted in time. This

may require programming and other

data management steps, so lead time

should be allowed.

Penalties for insufficient coverage

or benefits

Effective in 2014, PPACA provides

for numerous and complex penalties,

applicable to employers in either of

the following circumstances:

Notofferingahealthplanto95%or more of full-time employees

Offeringaplanto95%ormoreof

full-time employees, but the plan

fails an employee affordability test

or minimum value test.

Tax and strategic considerations youneed to know about health care reform

8 To view an outline of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, along with the full text of the law, see www.healthcare.gov/law/full/.


11/12


These minimum coverage and

benefits rules may require significant

policy discussions.

Action: Establish a formal

process as early in 2013 as possible to

determine a direction for your health

plan. This may involve calculating the

cost of a number of scenarios as well

as considering non-financial human

resources issues such as employee

retention and recruiting.

Given the complexities ofPPACA, employers needto keep the new health carelaw top of mind and becognizant of developments.

Work with your taxadviser and employeebenefits provider now tolearn more about theseand other requirements.

Energy and green initiativesGreen initiatives, which can help both the

bottom line and a companys reputation

with consumers, have been important for

some time. Our survey shows that for as

much as 82 percent of food manufacturers

surveyed, those programs continue to be

important heading into 2013.

However, 6.6 percent said that in

light of the economy, green initiatives are

becoming less important to them. Thats

up from the 5.6 percent who gave that

answer in 2012. The number who said theimportance of green initiatives was about

the same also increased from 46 percent

going into 2012 to about 53 percent of

those surveyed for our 2013 report.

Asked what initiatives they are

pursuing, food processors had a variety

of responses reflecting a range of actions

from simple common sense steps to

comprehensive programs. They included

increasing use of recycled content

materials, water reuse in the process

and motion control lights and sky lights

in the warehouse. One respondent

indicated his or her company was

already on track, and had reachedgoals and (would) continue monitoring

towards a zero-landfill facility.

Energy consumption can certainly be

considered in concert with other green

initiatives, but energy can also be a simple

bottom-line issue. When the latter is the

case, energy concerns enter and leave the

spotlight as prices fluctuate. With energy

prices somewhat at a plateau, this years

respondents put less emphasis on energy

consumption than we have seen in the past.

When asked how are youapproaching energy management?

(Figure 9) 54 percent of those surveyed

said they are taking steps in energy

conservation but close to 29 percent said

it is not a burning issue right now

up from 24 percent last year. Nearly

twenty-seven percent are conducting

energy audits and 22 percent are recycling

or redirecting energy throughout the

plant. Just over 5 percent of respondents

are looking at cogeneration and 10 percent

are looking for alternative energy sources

(down from 16 percent a year ago);

4percentareinstallingsolarpanels.

Figure 9: How are you approaching energy management?

Taking steps in energy conservation

Not a burning issue right now

Conducting energy audits

Recycling energy

(i.e. through redirection systems)

Negotiating with energy providers

Looking to energy

management consultants

Seeking alternate energy sources

Looking at co-generation

Other

Installing solar panels

*Totals exceed 100(%) because respondents could select more than one choice.

54.2%

28.6%

26.5%

21.9%

12.2%

11.3%

10.1%

5.5%

5.0%

4.2%

54 percent of those surveyed saidthey are taking steps in energyconservation.


12/12

Content in this publication is not intended to answer specific

questions or suggest suitability of action in a particular case.For additional information on the issues discussed, consult

a Grant Thornton client service partner.

Grant Thornton LLP

All rights reserved

U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Dexter Manning

Partner, National Food and Beverage Practice Leader

T 404.475.0061

E [email protected]

Anthony J. Hernandez

Principal, Business Advisory Services, IT Strategy

and Risk Management

T 215.701.8870

E [email protected]

Steve LymanManaging Director, Business Advisory Services

T 404.475.0070

E [email protected]

Ken Cameron

Director, Compensation and Benefits

T 404.704.0136

E [email protected]

Mark Ritter

Managing Director, Compensation and Benefits

T 404.704.0114

E [email protected]

About Grant Thornton LLPs Food and Beverage Practice

Grant Thornton LLP assists domestic and international food and

beverage companies as they navigate the complex industry

supply chain, as well as the ever-changing marketplace.

Our professionals work with a diverse range of businesses

from multinational food and beverage manufacturers to

beverage distributors, grocery stores and restaurants.

With vast experience in this sector, we offer guidance on

restructuring and reorganization, process improvement, supply

chain management, M&A, tax, audit and other matters. Ourprofessionals provide clients with solutions designed to deliver

growth and create value for their various stakeholders.

The people in the independent firms of Grant Thornton

International Ltd provide personalized attention and the

highest-quality service to public and private clients in more than

100 countries. Grant Thornton LLP is the U.S. member firm of

Grant Thornton International Ltd, one of the six global audit,

tax and advisory organizations. Grant Thornton International Ltd

and its member firms are not a worldwide partnership, as

each member firm is a separate and distinct legal entity.

In the United States, visit Grant Thornton LLP at

www.GrantThornton.com.
mailto:dexter.manning%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:anthony.hernandez%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:steve.lyman%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:ken.cameron%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:mark.ritter%40us.gt.com?subject=http://www.grantthornton.com/http://www.grantthornton.com/mailto:mark.ritter%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:ken.cameron%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:steve.lyman%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:anthony.hernandez%40us.gt.com?subject=mailto:dexter.manning%40us.gt.com?subject=

2013 manufacturing trends survey

Documents