This week’s edition of Bloomberg BusinessWeek features a timely but sober update indicating that: Things Are About to Get Ugly at Kraft.
Not only does this report indicate that change is already already underway for Kraft, it provides more sobering indicators of expected erosion in other associated industry business and supply chain capabilities in the months to come.
We are Supply Chain Matters have featured a number of commentaries related to Kraft and its associated supply chain capabilities since our inception in 2008. That includes its split in 2012 into two separate companies, Kraft and Mondelez International. We have done so because of our belief that this global CPG giant was a true barometer of the significant market and industry forces impacting what is increasingly being termed as “Big Food” today.
In 2009, Irene Rosenfeld, the CEO of Kraft at that time, indicated to The Wall Street Journal that “scale is a source of great competitive advantage” in terms of industry growth and innovation. That motivation probably led to the acquisition of Cadbury. Eighteen months later, Ms. Rosenfeld, along with Wall Street partners, orchestrated a massive corporate split, carving out Mondelez as a $30 billion focused snacks company with the most attractive prospects for global growth, particularly in emerging consumer markets.
The $18 billion North America focused grocery brands business was to be Kraft Foods which literally was forced to develop its own separate supply chain and business support systems.
Prior to the split, Kraft corporate had reportedly invested $700 million in a global rollout of a singular SAP ERP system. All of the assumptions that made-up that implementation suddenly changed.
This corporate split further implied two different supply chain business support and distribution models. Snack food and cookie consumers are impulse buyers, with promotions, market timing and inventory deployment strategies requiring sophistication and proper timing. The distribution model is focused on higher touch including direct to store service needs of convenience stores and smaller retail, particularly when emerging consumer markets are considered. Grocery, on the other hand, was a model of conservative sales growth but high scale and distribution volume. Much of the grocery customer base was large supermarkets, with emerging penetration among smaller retail and convenience stores. Grocery implied a high dependency on vendor managed inventory and responsive replenishment business replenishment. We again bring these tenets out, because they provide more context as to what existed and to what is now occurring.
In September of 2013, we praised the positive transformation and new leadership that was underway at split Kraft Foods. Former Procter & Gamble supply chain executive Bob Gorski was recruited to lead a dramatic transformation. In an industry conference presentation we viewed at the time, Gorski described product demand and supply processes touching literally 60 different times with little effect on forecast accuracy. Supply chain wide metrics were at odds with individual plant and functional metrics, some in direct conflict. There was a lack of a fixed execution planning window with 60 percent of plan changes occurring in the execution window. Production lines, on average, were forced to shutdown every 4 minutes because of various maintenance or setup issues due to inconsistent process specifications. Gorski articulated a goal as moving from metrics in isolation to metrics as part of a performance culture. Oh yes, adding to the challenge was a need for Kraft grocery to adopt a new supply chain software support system and more responsive technology enabled decision-making.
In March of this year, the industry was taken back with the news that H.J. Heinz would merge with Kraft Foods in a combined public company that was named Kraft Heinz Company. It creates what is anticipated to be the world’s third largest food and fifth largest beverage company featuring many well-known consumer brands. This deal was backed by infamous private equity firm 3G Capital Partners, and the financing of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, which each contributed $5 billion in financing. Together, bot investors own 51 percent of outstanding equity.
The latest Bloomberg article essentially opines that in the end, the Kraft-Heinz deal has little to do with market growth and a lot to do with cutting costs. That includes targeting an additional $1.5 billion reduction in annual costs before 2018 and according to the article: “The company will lose employees, whole levels of management, and maybe a few brands, too.” It cites as a reference a February 2015 McKinsey report which describes 3G Capital’s strategy as acquiring marquee brands that need operational improvement, and then “purging existing culture and management teams” while employing zero-based budgeting techniques requiring departments to justify every expenditure, and squeezing suppliers for similar cost savings. McKinsey noted that Heinz itself has since its takeover, lost market share in 65 percent of its product categories, yet adjusted earnings have risen nearly 38 percent.
Bloomberg cites data indicating that with the prior Heinz merger, 90 percent of the senior executive team departed within three weeks and more than 7000 jobs, 20 percent of the then existing workforce was cut, along with closing of five factories. Thus far, after closing the Kraft-Heinz deal last month, 2500 job cuts have been announced including more than a third of the existing staffing at Kraft corporate headquarters. Further announced was that Kraft headquarters will be move from a 700,000 square foot complex of a Chicago suburb to a 170,000 square foot office in downtown Chicago. Travel has been restricted, conferences have been put on-hold and employees instructed to print double-sided.
To reinforce an overall industry concern, Bloomberg reminds us that Nestle Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe had indicated earlier this year that Buffet and 3G have: “pulverized the food industry market, particularly in America, with serial acquisitions.” The Nestle executive additionally indicated that 3G’s “ruthless cost-cutting’, to improve profit margins has had a “revolutionary impact” on other food companies.
Parallel Impact- Mondelez
Today’s Business and Finance section of The Wall Street Journal features an updated report on Mondelez’s efforts at expanding market growth while attempting to reduce costs and improve margins. It observes that a second high-profile activist investor, William Ackman and his Pershing Square Capital Management firm revealed that it had built a $5.5 billion, 7.5 percent stake in the company, and cites sources as indicating a Pershing view that the snacks producer must cut costs significantly or sell itself to a rival. Activist Nelson Peltz of Train Fund Management joined the Mondelez Board in 2014 after a six month conflicting public debate on company strategy.
In emerging markets which currently account for 40 percent of existing Mondelez revenues, the company’s margins reportedly trail those of several rivals. The global snacks company has now reportedly engaged Accenture to implement zero-based budgeting techniques and a sweeping reorganization plan that is closing older factories in the U.S. and opening more efficient ones in lower-cost regions such as Mexico and Russia. The WSJ cites other equity analysts as engaging in debate as to whether the Nabisco brand use of direct-store delivery (DSD) in the U.S. should be curtailed or replaced for a lower-cost alternative.
Impact to Industry Supply Chain Capability
A fundamental belief in supply chain management is that supply chains exist to service customer needs and support required business strategic and tactical outcomes.
As activist actions continue to drive “Big Food” into modes of acute efficiency, cost-cutting and continued break-up and consolidation, the impact to supply chains invariable becomes destructive, risking the obliteration of previous gains in service, product quality, sustainability and process responsiveness. Once more, the tenets of supplier based product and process innovation are subsumed by other tactics to wring out additional cost reductions or more onerous payment terms.
While business and other industry media can for-tell of the pending ugliness that is circling Kraft, and perhaps Mondelez in the not too distant future, industry “Big-Food” supply chains risk a significant erosion of prior process, technology and other transformational gains as zero-based budgeting and wholesale cost-reduction efforts sap the energy of survivors. More importantly, the real objective for providing consumers with healthier, more sustainable food choices becomes subservient to an overriding short-term emphasis on increased margins and stockholder returns.
Hence is the legacy of activism, short-term results and the rest being damned. In the analogy of the wild kingdom, the weak in the herd are overtaken by predators, and soon the predators begin to overtake even the strong, as stamina is weakened.
One final editorial note: Our house has switched to French’s Ketchup. It is noted as free from high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavoring and preservatives and has a great taste. Hopefully, brands that have been around from the 1900’s will not succumb to the current madness surrounding “Big Food” and the wonton destruction of previous supply chain transformation initiatives, commitment to quality and commitment to talent and people development.
In June, The United States House of Representatives voted to repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken and social media commentary regarding the move continues to dominate as an ongoing trending topic. The reasons are obvious- consumers demand and expect knowledge as to the specific sourcing origins of food products. Consumers are right to be concerned and watchful, and the impact of these actions continue to impact food, beverage and consumer product goods focused supply chains.
The original COOL legislation had good intent, requiring meat products sold in supermarkets and grocery stores to specifically indicate where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered. Reports indicate that the original law was prompted by the lobbying of U.S. ranchers who compete with the Canadian cattle industry, and later garnered the interest of consumer watchdog interests.
But this current ongoing process now involves the political and economic implications of other supply chains, in addition to food.
The broader issue involves the World Trade Organization (WTO) which after the initial U.S. legislation was passed, ruled that the labels regarding animal origin would have a discriminatory impact against the two U.S. border countries, Canada and Mexico, and thus a barrier to free trade. Both border countries indicate that the law requires that animals be segregated by country of origin, a costly process that has U.S. wholesale buyers avoiding the buying of export origin meat products.
Both countries are seeking permission to impose what is described as billions of dollars in added tariffs on U.S. goods in retaliation. And there lies the supply chain impact which threatens to change the existing economics and stakeholder interests of cross-border trade.
U.S. legislators are thus caught in what is described as a damned if you do, or damned if you do not conundrum regarding the existing COOL repeal legislation which has now moved to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
In order to seek additional insights regarding the implications of COOL, Supply Chain Matters had the opportunity to recently speak with Candace Sider, vice-president of regulatory affairs, Canada, at international trade compliance services provider Livingston International. Ms. Sider has a significant background in understanding Canada’s regulatory processes involving interaction with federal and provincial officials, regulatory agencies and policymakers.
She explained that Canada viewed the original U.S. COOL labeling requirements as having a $3 billion impact on that country’s cattle and hog industry. During the current arbitration period, decisions are expected to be made as to what commodities would remain on the original impacted list. If the surtax were to be implemented, importation from the U.S. of the subject products could ultimately passed on to consumers. The U.S. government has indicated to the WTO that it disputes Canada’s figures. However, Canada is preparing to lift tariffs on U.S. imports that include in excess of 100 different commodities including products such as range and refrigerator parts, wine, and yes, chocolates.
The WTO is not expected to rule on the U.S.’s latest appeal to the threatened tariff increases until early August, or possibly September. Meanwhile, the implication of the ongoing dispute actually impacts more than just meat-focused supply chains.
Livingston is currently advising its clients to prepare for a number of potential scenarios involving the ongoing trade dispute process invoked by COOL.
Where all of this eventually ends-up is subject to many viewpoints. After all, this is very much a process driven by economic, multi-industry and lobbyist forces.
However, one aspect is clear. The complexity of today’s globally based supply chains takes on many different dimensions and implications. While you might have perceived that legislation affecting packaging disclosure of meat products has little to do with service parts, chocolates and wine, it indeed does. The takeaway is to nurture contacts and resources that can alert your team to ever changing developments and multi-industry implications.
Our newsletter is a more insightful look at global supply chain and B2B/B2C business process, technology and other important trends and is offered to both readers of this blog and clients of our consulting and industry analyst advisory services. Please check your inbox to insure you received a copy.
The Q2-2015 Newsletter includes the following updates and industry supply chain event implications:
- Q2 quantitative and qualitative highlight summaries of global PMI supply chain indices indicating more moderation and slowdown within emerging regions.
- Commercial Aerospace industry assesses supply chain ramp-up realities.
- Confirmed turbulence in global transportation.
- Continued crisis for Consumer Products and Food based supply chains.
If you would like a copy of our latest Q2 newsletter, please send an email with the title Newsletter Request to: newsletter <at> supply-chain-matters <dot> com. Please remember to include your Name, Role and/or company with your email address and we will have a copy sent directly as well as automatically add your email to future distribution.
Bob Ferrari, Founder and Executive Editor
Just before the 4th of July holiday in the United States, and after the blockbuster news announcement in March, HJ Heinz has now indicated that its proposed merger with Kraft Foods had been approved by Kraft Foods Group shareholders, forming what is to be called The Kraft Heinz Company, subject to certain customary closing conditions. A preliminary count of the voting results was noted as more than 98 percent of votes cast in favor of the transaction.
The transaction will reportedly create the third-largest Food and Beverage Company in North America and the fifth largest Food and Beverage Company globally. Business media previously reported that initial talks had begun in January, and now with half the year completed, the merger has moved to its transitional management stage. This is obviously, very swift action and perhaps a sign that planning was well underway.
As noted in previous Supply Chain Matters commentary, this Heinz-Kraft deal is backed by infamous private equity firm 3G Capital Partners, with financing from Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway. 3G Capital’s has a track record for aggressive cost-cutting, which has since sent further tremors among consumer product goods supply chain industry players. Since assuming operations management of HJ Heinz, upwards of 7000 jobs were eliminated in a 20 month span. New CEO Bernando Hees ultimately cut a third of the staff at Heinz’s headquarters including 11 of the company’s top 12 executives. The new combined Kraft-Heinz is seeking upwards of $1.5 billion in additional annual cost savings.
Further announced was the new senior leadership team for Kraft Heinz. The new senior leadership team will be headed by former Heinz and 3G Capital executive Bernardo Hees. The appointments are dominated by current Heinz executives, another indication of the aggressive cost-cutting practices to follow in the coming months. Of the 10 senior management roles, eight will be filled by Heinz executives. There is but one female executive as part of the new senior leadership team.
Included in these announcements is the appointment of Eduardo Pelleissone as Executive Vice President of Global Operations with direct global responsibility for supply chain, quality, and procurement and operations functions. Mr. Pelleissone joined Heinz in 2013 with the acquisition of 3G Capital, as Head of Operations. Before joining Heinz, the executive was heading operations at All America Latina Logistica S/A.
Noted in the announcement is that Robert Gorski, previous EVP, Integrated Supply Chain at Kraft Foods will depart upon completion of the merger. In a previous Supply Chain Matters 2013 commentary, we praised Gorski for his leadership style and efforts in transforming Kraft Foods supply chain business processes after its former split involving Mondelez International. Gorski exhibited an active and inclusive leadership style.
Melissa Werneck was appointed SVP Global Human Resources, Performance and IT. She also joined Heinz in 2013 and according to the announcement, led an Integrated Management System that included a Management by Objectives (MBO) Program. This appears to be an interesting mix of MBO and IT under a singular executive leader.
The new senior leadership team is further comprised of four Zone Presidents who will manage Europe, Russia, Asia Pacific and Latin America regions.
Newly appointed Kraft COO George Zoghbi has now been appointed COO of U.S. Commercial Business and will lead five commercial business units. Certain direct reports of Zoghbi will be part of Bernardo Hess’s termed Extended Leadership Team, and includes elements of corporate marketing, U.S. sales and budgeting.
As noted in a previous commentary, the new combined company will be driven by zero-based budgeting methods. Andre Maciel was promoted to head of U.S. Commercial Finance that includes U.S. Budget and Business Planning (BBP). Maciel directly reports to COO Zoghbi and is a member of the termed Extended Leadership Team.
Advertising Age was quick to note that the new Kraft-Heinz will not have a Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) in its senior leadership team. The top ranking marketing position will be a Vice President, Marketing Innovation role assumed by Kraft veteran Nina Barton who will report to COO Zoghbi and will also be designated as part of the Extended Management Team. Current Kraft CMO Jane Hilk will reportedly also leave the completion upon completion of the merger.
From our lens, this appears to be a sign that product and brand marketing will not take a lead presence in business strategy which has been the practice of CPG firms. Instead, revenue growth and increased profitability will take center stage.
The new combined Kraft-Heinz company will surely garner lots of business, supply chain and industry media attention in the months to come, from many different contexts. Of more interest, other industry players, suppliers and investors will be closely monitoring the actions taken as well as the results.
Business as usual no longer will suffice among CPG focused supply chains.
For the past three years, our Supply Chain Matters editorial commentaries related to the annual Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) sponsored State of Logistics survey reports have consistently expressed concern towards a persistent trend for increased logistics, transportation and inventory costs within the U.S… The latest report depicting 2014 activity and our related commentary was no exception.
Thus it was rather timely this week for the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) to release findings of a benchmark research report conducted with the help of the Boston Consulting Group. The report, A Hard Road: Why CPG Companies Need a Strategic Approach to Transportation, provides profound observations for Consumer Product Goods focused supply chains related to transportation cost increases trending way beyond a cyclical trend. The most sober takeaway from the report is the declaration that: “transporting goods to retailers is now the greatest worry of supply chain leaders.”
The GMA-BSC report indicates that more than 80 percent of supply leaders interviewed cited transportation as their top-of-mind concern, while across the board, service levels are declining. According to the report: “Trucks are chronically late, capacity is insufficient, and delivery windows are exasperating retailers” Once more, transportation costs are noted as eroding other supply chain cost savings. The report authors indicate that since the study was conducted in 2012, freight costs have risen as much as 14 percent over the four year period, and only a third of CPG producers were able to trim transportation costs these past two years. CPG firms are further increasing safety stock inventories to compensate for unpredictable service levels.
While there is no simple solution for tackling the current challenges related to transportation, the report outlines five different lever strategies for reader consideration. A key message is that the procurement of transportation can no longer be viewed from a pure commodity perspective, but rather a strategic internal or external sourcing strategy related to line-of-business needs. One important lever outlined was that active supply chain network design analysis should be considered a priority. A sober statistic noted that 72 percent of CPG firms surveyed are now actively engaged in network design efforts as compared to the 6 percent level reported in 2012. That is compelling. Such efforts are directed at dynamic means to optimize routes, locations of distribution centers for supporting customer fulfillment needs as well as assessment of trade-offs in owning transportation assets. Obviously, technology and services firms catering to supply need network design are rallying to support these needs.
This report concludes with a message that CPG supply chains need to view transportation from a strategic lens, focusing product distribution strategies on transportation-centric cost and service requirement needs. Supply Chain Matters obviously adds that such recommendations apply to other industry supply chains as well, along with active consideration for developing in-house supply chain network design capabilities.
U.S. transportation cost and service performance are indeed an ongoing key concern, one that will remain to be analyzed at the highest levels of supply chain leadership for many more months to come. Carriers and 3PL’s had better be attentive and proactive in addressing these concerns.
In order to boost relatively flat revenue growth among its U.S. physical retail outlets, Wal-Mart recently raised salary levels for its respective U.S. retail associates to improve customer service and responsiveness. The retailer further continues to invest heavily in its online fulfillment channel. All of these actions provide adding pressure on margins.
In April, Supply Chain Matters echoed business media reports indicating that this global retailer was ratcheting up pressures on its suppliers to squeeze costs. Earlier this month, Reuters reported and somewhat validated a significant effort to offset increasing costs, namely imposing added charges among most all of Wal-Mart suppliers. Supply Chain Matters is of the belief that this effort will have added implications for both parties.
According to the report, added fees will relate to warehousing inventory along with amended payment terms, affecting upwards of 10,000 U.S. suppliers. In one cited example, Reuters indicates that a food supplier would supposedly be charged 10 percent of the value of inventory shipped to new stores or warehouses, along with one percent to hold inventory in existing Wal-Mart warehouses. It reportedly was not clear if the one-time charges apply only to the initial shipment or would cover a specific period of time. A Wal-Mart spokesperson indicated to Reuters that these fees were a means for sharing costs of growth and keeping consumer prices low.
In our April commentary, we observed that these appear to be signs of yet another wave of supplier squeeze tactics in order to improve a retailer or manufacturer’s overall margins. While these actions are not new for Wal-Mart, their application to a far broader population of suppliers is noteworthy. Such efforts that add to the cost burden of doing business with a retailer are bound to provide setbacks in efforts towards deeper collaboration and supplier product innovation. Consider that Wal-Mart continues with the construction and opening of new online fulfillment centers to support is WalMart.com fulfillment needs. The addition of supplier inventory fees to stock these new centers may cause some suppliers to consider alternative inventory stocking strategies of their own, that balance the needs of Wal-Mart with other retailers such as Amazon, Target or Costco. Indeed, unilateral efforts directed at transferring the cost burden among suppliers can often lead to counter-productive consequences, particularly during seasonal buying surge periods such as the holiday season.
Suppliers can take advantage of the same fulfillment decision-support technology as retailers, namely to determine the profitability potential for each major customer, and providing preferential service for customers that financially support needs for added responsiveness and fulfillment collaboration.
Too often, it seems that these mandates are handed down by the most senior management responding to investor pressures for more short-term profitability and margin growth. These efforts cascade from retailers and manufacturers, to first tier suppliers, and throughout other tiers of the supply chain. It’s unfortunate that there supply chain teams are rewarded more for enforcement of such actions as opposed to efforts directed at joint supplier process and product innovation.