Food and beverage manufacturers are under pressure to do more than simply keep lines running. Rising energy costs, tighter margins, stricter sustainability expectations and growing food-safety demands are forcing a rethink of how performance is measured. Yet many firms still judge success through separate operational, financial and environmental lenses, even though those outcomes are now tightly linked.
That fragmentation is the central weakness in many current management syste...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
ms. Measures such as overall equipment effectiveness remain useful for showing whether assets are available, performing and producing to standard. But, as Schneider Electric argues, they do not reveal whether a plant is creating the best possible value from capital, energy and materials at the same time.
The problem is not a lack of data. In many cases, manufacturers already have the systems needed to track production, utilities and output. The issue is that the information is still interpreted in silos. A decision that lifts throughput may increase energy intensity. A cost-cutting measure may raise waste. A sustainability improvement may go unrecognised if it is not also translated into operational or financial terms.
That tension is playing out across the industry. A benchmark study cited by Lineview found that manufacturers making better use of real-time data and upskilling operators tended to achieve stronger operational efficiency, higher utilisation and better overall equipment performance. The implication is clear: when front-line teams are given timely, reliable information, they are better able to improve processes before problems become expensive.
Other industry analysis points in the same direction. Food and beverage operations are facing intense cost pressure alongside stricter traceability requirements and rising ESG expectations, according to SGS. Lean methods, it notes, are increasingly being used to cut waste, scrap and giveaway without compromising quality or compliance. In other words, operational excellence is no longer only about speed; it is also about protecting margin while limiting avoidable loss.
This is where the case for a broader metric becomes stronger. Schneider Electric proposes a dual focus on capital and carbon efficiency, arguing that the same process can be assessed in terms of both value creation and emissions impact. That approach makes trade-offs more visible. It also exposes hidden inefficiencies that can be missed when finance, operations and sustainability teams work to different scorecards.
Some of the clearest gains are likely to come from routine activities. Clean-in-place cycles, for example, are often treated as fixed overhead, yet they can be refined through better scheduling and monitoring to reduce water, energy and downtime. Food waste is another obvious area: every off-spec product represents lost ingredients, processing effort and capital, as well as unnecessary emissions. Packaging decisions can have a similar effect, shaping material costs, transport weight and carbon output all at once.
The broader message is that the industry does not necessarily need more tools. It needs a different way of using the ones it already has. If businesses can connect capital deployment, energy use and production performance in a single decision-making framework, they are more likely to improve margins and sustainability together rather than one at the expense of the other.
For food and beverage manufacturers, that may be the next definition of efficiency: not merely how fast a line runs, but how well the entire system converts capital, energy and effort into profitable, lower-carbon output.
Source: Noah Wire Services
