Category Archives: Sustainability

Dangerous Procurement Predictions Part IV

As per our first three posts, if you read my predictions post, you know SI hates predictions posts. It fully despises them because the vast majority of these posts are pure optimistic fantasy and help no one. Why are the posts like this? Because no one wants to hear the sobering reality off of the bat in the new year and the influencers care more about clicks than actually helping you.

But the predictions are not only bad, they’re dangerous if you believe them. So we are continuing to lay bare the reality of the situation to make sure you understand that this year isn’t much different than last year, no miracles are coming, and only hard work and the application of your human intelligence are going to get you anywhere. Today we tackle the next set, and we hope we’re at the end of the series, but if we stumble across more bad predictions, we’ll have to do a Part V. But we hope not!

11. Negotiation gets productized.

Here’s the thing, in a few niche industries like electronics, we have a few niche players like Levadata that bundle “should-cost” + playbooks + concession sequencing for experienced buyers to help them leverage the state of the market for the best results possible. But they’re hardly used relative to the total electronic market size, as they are used mainly by component buyers / manufacturers, not consumers of such tech (to understand the manufacturer’s margins).

Similar offerings don’t exist across most industries. And even if they did, most buyers are not sophisticated enough to do this. Most struggle with a multi-round RFX, yet alone detailed should-cost/target cost models, negotiation playbooks (which have to cover all standard market conditions and unique situations), and the concept of BATNA, especially relative to offers and counter-offers in a structured concession sequence.

Without these domain relevant niche offerings and career negotiations trained in deep tech, which are both few and far between, this is not going to happen. And Artificial Idiocy certainly isn’t going to fill the gap!

12. AI As a “Governance” Engine.

The claim: When you design them well, agents encode judgment, compliance and brand values into every transaction. Uhm, no! At least not if they are Gen-AI agents that can’t judge (as they can’t even reason), may or may not execute compliant with regulations, and will happily screw a supplier (by refusing to pay an invoice) or customer (by refusing to honour a claim) if it thinks that’s what it needs to do to make you happy or stay turned on (because it was told to find savings of 500K and it’s calculations determine that paying certain invoices or honouring certain claims will not allow that savings goal to be met, if it was even possible when the AI told you it was as it may have arbitrarily multiplied a calculation by -1 just to make the math work).

Governance, by definition, requires the act of governing. And governing, by definition, requires the wisdom as well as the authority to conduct the affairs of the organization. And only truly intelligent beings (i.e. HUMANS) can acquire wisdom over time.

13. There will be no more “X” employees because AI will replace them all!

First of all, how many times do we have to repeat that there are NO AI Employees, you shouldn’t believe the degrading, demeaning, and, frankly, dehumanizing claims, and that you definitely DO NOT want Agentic Buying through fake AI Employees. Secondly, it can’t even do the basic tasks that even the dumbest drunken plagiarist intern can do on a daily basis. But let’s not digress too far before giving you the major examples.

Claim #1: Contract Administrator / Staff Attorney

THE PROPHET has been trying to Kill ALL the Lawyers for quite some time now, and it seems he’s not alone.

But here’s the thing. While AI systems are pretty good (and as good as the drunken plagiarist interns) at spotting grammar errors, redlining against standard clauses, pointing out missing clauses in most organizational contracts, etc., they aren’t good at everything. They can’t identify unaddressed risks without being told what those risks are, they can’t judge the full extent of liability without understanding what those liabilities could be, and they can’t judge the supply geo-political and supply chain risks without broader context.

Plus, they can’t always back up their suggestions; often make up case law, case decisions, and authors; and can’t always judge the requirements of potentially relevant regulations. And we’ve seen many times what happens when even trained lawyers use AI — they get lazy, fall for the slop, get reprimanded and fined by judges tired of the laziness (with a recent example happening in November in Mata v. Avianca, Inc). The previous link also lists three other notable cases where lawyers (and their firms) were fined and sanctioned, but, by now, there are dozens!

But hey, go ahead and replace your lawyer, write bad contracts, make decisions on fake case law, and risk your entire business if you want to. (If you want to, it’s probably safe to go ahead and get rid of the intern who does the redlining and the clerk that does the filing, the AI is probably just as good at that, but do not ever, ever replace a real qualified lawyer with a piece of sh!t “AI”.)

Claim #2: Spend Analyst

Sure you can buy auto-classification that might get to 95%, auto-cubing that can build any cube you can imagine, auto-analytics that can run the entire slate of standard analytics and compute past, current, and projected costs against past current, and projected market data based upon current buying patterns and suggest items, categories, and/or suppliers to (re) source, switch from/to, and possibly (re)shape demand.

But this doesn’t mean that it’s the right items or categories to chase, the right suppliers to use, or even the right area to focus your efforts. It’s based on math, and an assumption of consistent, stable, market conditions, but those don’t exist anymore. If you’re not also considering geo-politics, natural disaster risk, uncertain logistics when the panama canal reaches historic lows for much of the year, terrorists block the Red Sea, and unpredictable weather make sailing around the capes more dangerous than other, and sourcing for resiliency and not just cost, your “spend” analytics are useless. You need an analyst with a good understanding of economics (and access to an economist), geo politics (and access to local experts), and resiliency, not just total cost of ownership buying. (Now, the junior data pushers are probably all dead and gone, but not the real experts!)

Claim #3: Sourcing Event Manager

Now, transactional buyers are gonna get replaced by autonomous systems that use next generation (advanced) robotic process automation enhances with machine learning in Agentic systems, because ordering off of contracts, ordering from catalogs, and doing low-cost non-strategic buys through quick-quote RFPs doesn’t take any brainpower whatsoever (making it perfect for AI that has none).

But strategic sourcing requires more than just buying off of contracts, ordering from catalogs, and issuing quick-quote RFPs! It requires defining key criteria (that go beyond what engineering, marketing, or maintenance provides), identifying validated suppliers (or identifying suppliers that can be easily validated), holistically analyzing the market conditions, determining the best event type, determining the negotiation strategy, etc. The tools might be able to help with initial supplier identification, collecting numerical (commodity) market data, letting you know what event types were run in the past, compiling fact-based playbooks, and, of course, automating each extent of the process, but they can’t do real strategic sourcing that requires real human intelligence. And with today’s geo-political uncertainty, that human intelligence is needed more than ever which means that expert sourcing professionals are needed more than ever. (But dumb buyers will join the dodos.)

There are more ridiculous claims, but you get the point. Skilled jobs are not going away. (But bit pushers are.)

14. New standards for Ethical and Sustainable Supply Chains.

In some countries, current standards aren’t even being met. Good luck getting new standards introduced, since there aren’t a lot of global internationals (with those headquartered in the US in particular) that want even more rigour, especially if it will cost money! As long as laws are being minimally met, or reasonably-sized “facilitation payments” can make problems go away, this is not a priority, especially if going beyond would cost more money!

15. The “AI Singularity” is coming faster than we can process.

It’s not, because the models can’t get bigger, there is no more data, and no one has yet come up with a model that has any hope of even getting close to the actual intelligence of a pond snail.

Plus, if it ever did happen, considering a “singularity” is actually a black hole, it would rapidly consume (i.e. destroy) the Earth, and we wouldn’t have to worry about it. This is just more nonsense from the A.S.S.H.O.L.E.

Sustainability in 2025 and Beyond, Part 6: Sustainability Strategies, Part III Demand

In our first installment we noted that while sustainability may have fallen out of favour in the current American political and regulatory environment to the point that we had to counter the Chief Sustainability Officer graphics going around earlier this year with a Chief Sustainability Officer: USA Edition, sustainability, at its core is becoming more and more important to corporate survival. In our second installment, we described how sustainability concerns permeate every department of the organization, and failing to adhere to them is not only unsustainable in the environmental sense, but also in the business sense. In our third instalment we dove into the stakeholder engagement that is required for true sustainability success.

Then, in our (forth) installment, we started outlining the key areas of focus to identify the key projects that will increase both environmental AND business sustainability, starting with energy. We followed this up in our fifth installment with (fresh)water reduction. In today’s, sixth, post we continue with key project identification in the areas of demand.

Non-Renewable Resource Reduction

Unlike the first two posts, where we could pinpoint specific situations where you had a lot of opportunity for sustainability improvements that would lead to significant cost reductions (which is the ultimate key to business sustainability), this depends on what you are buying, what options are at your disposal, and how much opportunity you have for substitution and/or re-design.

Let’s take a few examples to try and explain this:

  • Packaging: you can use new packaging made from freshly cut trees, or you can use packaging with a high concentration of recycled material
  • Fuel/Plastics: you can use petroleum-based fuel and plastics or you can use biofuel/bioplastics
  • Electronics: you can use rare earth magnets with ferrite magnites or continue your research into iron-nitride and magnesium-based alloys for permanent magnets and focus on developing alternatives to lithium batteries such as sodium-ion, zinc, or solid-state batteries

There’s no magic formula for identifying which non-renewable resource-based products can be replaced with products that are based mostly, or solely, on renewable resources beyond examining every product you are purchasing for alternatives. Fortunately, that’s not as hard as it was twenty years ago with modern technology that has extensive built-in catalogs, pre-defined SKU similarity groupings, and custom-designed AI for identifying similar products that could be potential replacements that can recommend potentially more sustainable alternatives for consideration on every product selection.

One-Time/Short-Term Use Demand Reduction

As with non-renewable resource reduction, it’s not easy to identify one-time use demands that can be eliminated without careful consideration of why the demand is there and what the alternative is. However, all one-time use products should be evaluated for reduction and elimination opportunities.

For example, you should analyze:

  • print catalogs, newsletters, (free) magazines and flyers: yes, there is still a generation that likes them, but that generation is shrinking fast as even that generation is hooked on the internet, which allows for faster, quicker, paper free delivery; if you have a small percentage of the customer base that wants paper, at least let them self-select into a subscription and then only print (on demand) what you need to; the per unit price may be a few cents more, but if you’re only printing 1/10th of the volume, big savings in cost and resources
  • printer paper similarly, how much do you really need to print — if your team needs reports on the go, consider supplying everyone with a large tablet (with a display optimized for reading) in addition to their laptop
  • plastic cutlery and cups in the break room use real ceramic and stainless steel

Basically, look at anything that has a short life-span and see if you can reduce or substitute the demand with something with a longer lifespan that will lead to savings in the long term.

Equipment Reduction

Basically, how much equipment are you buying vs. how much equipment do you need? Consider the following:

  • end-user electronics focus on selecting phones and tablets with long shelf-lives and extended warranties, and laptops that can be upgraded to extend their shelf-life
  • IT servers and storage how many do you need to support your secure internal operations vs. how much demand can you shift to the cloud for on-demand computation
  • fleet do you need as much as you have? is it hybrid/electric with a longer lifespan than traditional diesel?

Again, as per the past two situations, every organization is different, and it will take careful review of alternatives to determine where sustainability will bring savings and where it won’t. But, as per our section on non-renewable resources, modern technology can do a great job identifying when there are more sustainable cost-saving options to consider.

However, as with energy and water utilization, at the end of the day, there are many opportunities in a business to be truly sustainable …. and by that, we mean choose environmentally friendly options that save the business a considerable amount of money, especially in the mid-and-long term. That’s what sustainability is truly about.

Sustainability in 2025 and Beyond, Part 5: Sustainability Strategies, Part II (Fresh)Water

In our first installment we noted that while sustainability may have fallen out of favour in the current American political and regulatory environment to the point that we had to counter the Chief Sustainability Officer graphics going around earlier this year with a Chief Sustainability Officer: USA Edition, sustainability, at its core is becoming more and more important to corporate survival. In our second installment, we described how sustainability concerns permeate every department of the organization, and failing to adhere to them is not only unsustainable in the environmental sense, but also in the business sense. In our third instalment we dove into the stakeholder engagement that is required for true sustainability success.

Then, in our last (forth) installment, we started outlining the key areas of focus to identify the key projects that will increase both environmental AND business sustainability, starting with energy. In today’s, fifth, post we continue with key project identification in the areas of (fresh)water and resources.

(Fresh)Water Reduction

Water shortages and scarcity is becoming all too common. More than 50% of the USA — the richest country in the world which, theoretically, could have the best infrastructure — has suffered droughts and water scarcity issues, with scarcity often getting so bad in parts of California that even the US President says they need to open a very large faucet (which doesn’t exist, but it is needed).

It’s so bad in California that they had to serve NestlĂ© a cease-and-desist order to stop it from taking millions of gallons of water it wasn’t entitled to. (Source: The Guardian). Thus, unless you want your taps to run dry (either due to lack of water availability or the local government agency literally turning your taps off), you need to minimize your water usage.

The major uses of water in most businesses, depending on the business type, are:

  • Restrooms/Showers Old fashioned, high water usage toilets and urinals, and high-flow shower heads (instead of low-flow, high pressure) combined with poor maintenance with constant, unaddressed, slow leaks waste a considerable amount of water. Reductions of up to 50% water usage with proper equipment selection and installation are possible. (Proper selection is key, not all low-flow models actually meet the MaP test measure they advertise, and a high scoring model is key, because you don’t save water if you have to flush two or three times.)
  • Water Cooling This is especially critical in power plants (which can consume millions of gallons of water daily) and IT data centers (which can also consume hundreds of thousands of gallons of water daily). Because contaminates like minerals, scale, and bacteria build up over time and evaporation occurs, water cannot be reused indefinitely, but with proper treatment and filtering and cooling systems (passing through high efficiency refrigerated zones), the amount of freshwater required can be greatly reduced, especially if there is a renewable energy source to power the refrigerant based cooling in the closed-loop system (and extremely good high-efficiency reverse osmosis systems). With today’s technology, except for regular top-up to deal with evaporation, it is possible to recycle water for years, whereas a decade or two ago the systems might have needed to be flushed every few months.
  • Irrigation Many office buildings or facilities also include land with greenery that needs to be maintained, usually with fresh water, which, in peak heat periods, can consume thousands of gallons of water a day — if the facility installs a small wastewater filtration and management system, as well as an underground irrigation system, a lot of the wastewater that goes through its building sinks and showers can be automatically pumped through the irrigation system, minimizing the need for freshwater for irrigation

We’ll continue with the other areas in our next installment.

Sustainability in 2025 and Beyond, Part 4: Sustainability Strategies, Part I (Energy)

In our first installment we noted that while sustainability may have fallen out of favour in the current American political and regulatory environment to the point that we had to counter the Chief Sustainability Officer graphics going around earlier this year with a Chief Sustainability Officer: USA Edition, sustainability, at its core is becoming more and more important to corporate survival. In our second installment, we described how sustainability concerns permeate every department of the organization, and failing to adhere to them is not only unsustainable in the environmental sense, but also in the business sense. In our third instalment we dove into the stakeholder engagement that is required for true sustainability success.

In this, our forth installment, we are going to begin by outlining the key areas in which to focus to identify the key projects that will increase both environmental AND business sustainability.

If you review our second installment, the biggest lifts in sustainability come from:

  • (Non-Renewable) Energy Reduction
  • Freshwater Reduction
  • Non-Renewable Resource Reduction
  • Equipment Reduction
  • (One-Time Use) Demand Reduction

We’ll take each of these one-by-one and outline some of the major areas where there is a lot of waste. In future posts we may dive into the details on how to tackle them (where it’s not obvious).

(Non-Renewable) Energy Reduction

Energy is pricey. You want to reduce your energy needs across the board, and where you can’t reduce any further, you want to ensure that 100% of your energy is coming from renewable sources like Solar, Wind, and Hydro because, in the long term, that is the cheaper energy source.

Most operations have major energy inefficiencies in one or more of the following areas:

  • Lighting. Many office buildings have lights on over half the day, if not way longer, and are still running low efficiency flourescent vs. high efficiency LED, where the former will give off 40 to 80 lumens per watt and the latter will give off 75 to 150 lumens per watt, halving to quartering lighting energy requirements; it may not seem like a lot, but a 40 w T12 flurescent bulb running 12 hours a day for a year consumes 175 kWh; an LED equivalent bulb will consume about 15 watts, or 65 kWh over the course of the year for an almost 38% savings. Now consider that you will likely have at least 1500 of these lighting a 10,000 square meter office (10,000 m^2 x 400 lumens / 2,600 lumens), that’s a savings of 165,000 kwH or about $25,000 if you’re paying 15c/kwH. Now, rip and replace of all of your lighting isn’t cheap, but with a lifespan estimate of at least 50,000 hours for an LED outlet, that’s a 10 year plus lifespan. Estimate about $45/unit for a bulk purchase, or $67.5K plus $28.5K for electrical work, and for an upfront investment of $96K, you’re looking at a savings of at least 250K+ (since we aren’t factoring in WACC) for an ROI of at least 260% (while working towards a green building).
  • Heating: Whether you are heating with oil or off the grid, heating adds up quickly, especially if you are in a climate that drops below 0 for much of the winter. In northern climates, space and water heating can be quite significant since the US Energy and Information Agency estimates these costs make up over 2/3 of energy consumption for home and general office buildings. When it comes to heating, it’s not just the space, it’s the energy efficiency of the space. Poor insulation, leaky windows, poor use of natural light (and heat) can double or triple costs. While you can’t do much about this if you rent, if you are buying a commercial building, before you move in, do an energy efficiency analysis, and if it’s not in the top quartile, gut and redo it. If energy hungry lighting can eat up 200K/year in a large office building, heating (or cooling in hot climates) can eat up 2 Million, with a Million of that being unnecessary. Over decades, you will save 10X your up-front investment.
  • IT: After heating and cooling, the next biggest energy hog in most office buildings is the IT infrastructure and the internal server farm. Especially if the IT department is running older servers three or four generations behind, as older servers tend to be huge energy hogs for the relative computing power and output. It’s also critical to ensure that the IT infrastructure is appropriately sized and continually running at 80% utilization, with the ability to spin up and spin down computing resources as needed.

In addition, in manufacturing, you also have to consider:

  • Production/Assembly Lines: these are huge energy consumers; and energy efficiency all comes down to utilization; if you’re not using the line at 90% efficiency or more, you’re wasting energy; many operations who aren’t using a modern Manufacturing Planning / Execution System (MPS/MES) who think they are efficient will only be operating at 60% or 70% efficiency, at best; talk to the leaders in MPS/MES and even Semiconductor Chip Manufacturing and you’ll be shocked at the efficiency gains (and thus energy conservation) these companies find daily

Finally, in distribution, you also have to consider:

  • Fuel Efficiency, and especially if you are transporting over long distances; are you transporting by air when you could be using ocean; are you transporting by truck when you could be using rail; are you using ethanol or hybrid trucks instead of dirty diesel; are you maximizing for full containers/truckloads or sending half-empty trucks; and are you ensuring that return trips are utilized, or sending them back empty?

We’ll continue with the other areas in our next installment.

Sustainability in 2025 and Beyond, Part 3: Breaking Out the Stakeholder Requirements

In our first installment we noted that while sustainability may have fallen out of favour in the current American political and regulatory environment to the point that we had to counter the Chief Sustainability Officer graphics going around earlier this year with a Chief Sustainability Officer: USA Edition, sustainability, at its core is becoming more and more important to corporate survival. In our second installment, we described how sustainability concerns permeate every department of the organization, and failing to adhere to them is not only unsustainable in the environmental sense, but possibly in the business sense (because sustainability, done right, also sustain costs at an affordable level, and thus profits).

In this, our third instalment, we are going to dive into the stakeholder engagement that is required for sustainability success. As per our first post, stakeholder engagement is required beyond just the business departments for success. It also requires alignment across:

  • investors
  • the board
  • suppliers / contractors
  • customers

Investors

The best sustainability initiatives with the longest term potential often involves up-front investment (which often results in short-term losses), which means that the investors need to be on board for any major sustainability effort, and willing to both make the up-front investment and take the short-term hit to the profit margin (for long term gains).

The Board

The Board, who answers to the shareholders, also needs to be onboard because the minute profits drop year-over-year is the minute the board is going to throw you under the bus when the expected profits that they promised the shareholders (they answer to) do not materialize. The Board needs to see the long-term gain potential, accept the vision, and communicate that to the shareholders, of which the majority will need to see the long-term value of up-front sustainability investments, for the initiative to be supported over the necessary term.

Suppliers / Contractors

As an organization, you are not sustainable if your suppliers are not sustainable, especially if your definition of sustainability is to minimize non-renewable energy usage and reduce carbon in your supply chain. You can’t have a clean operation if all of your suppliers, carbon wise, are the dirtiest drunks.

Customers

You might think you are sustainable if your operation and your supplier operations are sustainable, but like every other business, you depend on business from your customers. Unless you are directly selling to the end consumer, if your corporate customers are not sustainable, and they end up in trouble due to consumer revolt or financial troubles from uncontrolled costs, that’s going to trickle down the supply chain to you. You want to seek out, support, and serve sustainable customers.

Your Business Counterparts

For true sustainability to materialize, the entire organization needs to be on board, not just your team or department. As with anything worth doing, sustainability is a continual journey, not an easily accomplished task as the first leg may consist of the equivalent of a thousand miles of effort. But done right, it’s always worth it.

So now that you understand who needs to be onboard, we can start outlining key projects the organization should start with, focussing on key goals that not only help with regulatory support in regions that require it, but can also be used for brand building.