Henkel Iberica Report

docx

School

University of Waterloo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

434

Subject

Business

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

6

Uploaded by CoachRockEagle43

Report
1. Introduction Henkel Iberica, a subsidiary of Henkel KgaA, has 4 key business segments: Laundry and Home Care, Adhesives, Henkel Technologies and Cosmetics/Toiletries. For the laundry/home care area, it owns 6 production plants for manufacturing powders, liquids, and bleaches along with 3 distribution centres in the Iberian Peninsula. Home care constituted 58% of the sales of all Henkel subsidiaries in Spain. 2. Competitive scenario in the Household Care Industry Henkel Iberica faced competitions from two key areas: 1. Other national brands: P&G with strong brands in laundry (23.3% market share – Exhibit 5 of case ), Reckitt Benckiser with competitive prices, and Unilever provided stiff competition to Henkel. Henkel was viewed as trustworthy but did not have as high a level of consumer acceptance as these competitors. 2. Private labels: These companies sold their products 50% below Henkel’s price. Hence, they eroded Henkel’s market share by 3-4 points each year. Prior to 1995, the different players in the industry competed on price which led to price wars resulting in significant losses for the independent retailers. The Law on Commerce was established in 1995, which prohibited retailers from selling at a loss, except in liquidation cases. Therefore, retailers could not sell branded products below the wholesale price or cost of procurement. However, private labels used discounts and gradually increased their market share to 13.4% in 2001. Non-branded products too leveraged this channel. Hence, retailers began to rely heavily on the lower prices of non-branded and private label products to boost sales. Henkel, like the other national brands, was compelled to use product variants and special promotions to differentiate itself. Each retailer also demanded a unique promotion in order to have an edge over other retailers. Some of the promotional offers used by Henkel were: more quantity of product for same price, specially bundled products, coupons and free goods attached to the package, and gifts at checkout counter. This resulted in Henkel having a large number of SKUs which increased the complexity of forecasting for both Henkel and the retailers. Henkel Iberica’s sales reduced to 651 million euros in 2001 from 764 million euros in 2000. Although, the sales volume were higher, the value was eroded because of cost of product complexity at warehouses and stockouts at retailers’ points of sale. 3. Key issues for Henkel Iberica The issues facing Henkel Iberica can be broadly divided into the following: 1. SKU proliferation due to product variants and promotions : 96 SKUs per month were made at the Montornes plant. The number of SKUs escalated from 250 to 800 during 1995-2001 with 60% of new SKUs being introduced each year. These high number of SKUs led to 15-30 line format changes per month in the plant which resulted in increase in the production costs. 2. Bullwhip effect : Due to the lack of a centralized forecasting system, Henkel experienced the bull whip effect which led to instances of overstocking and understocking. When product replenishment was not coordinated between plants and warehouses, the company had to spend up to € 450,000 on transportation and handling. 3. Increased production costs : Increasing number of SKUs and complex product portfolio led to increased production costs resulting from frequent set ups, overtime etc. 4. High packaging lead time and large number of suppliers : There were 55 and 65 suppliers for raw materials and packaging respectively. While some of these suppliers delivered just-in-time, the
general lead time for the packaging suppliers was high. As a result, the frequently changing packaging requirements with every new promotion led to higher lead times. 5. Obsolescence: Obsolete items can only be sold at 20% above the manufacturing cost, or as a special promotion, or clubbed with another promotion, or scrapped resulting in understocking being more expensive than overstocking. Obsoletes constituted 30% of the 800 SKUs, with 8% of the stock in warehouses were obsolete on average. 4. Alternatives Available 1. Special promotions (Status quo) To tackle the rising competition from low cost private labels and increased competition from existing users in the already saturated market, Henkel resorted to policies like special promotions where offers were different for different customers. Pros and cons of these policies are as follows: Pros (Special promotions) Cons (Special promotions) Ensures differentiation from competition Made offer attractive for the retailers and the customers leading to increased sales Increased number of SKUs Increased inaccuracy in forecasting resulting in overstock/understock Increase in production and packaging costs 2. Everyday Low prices (EDLP): Everyday low price (EDLP) is a strategy that promises consumers a low price each day without the use of any other special discount. Traditionally retailers offer special discounts, gifts or some form of incentive to increase footfall in their store. Manufacturers may offer products at discounted price to increase sales volume or increase attractiveness of the product in the eyes of consumers, because of which many customers delay their purchase decisions in the expectation of better deals. As a result, promotions and special discounts lead fluctuations in demand. Fluctuations can be difficult to predict if we don’t have good consumer behavior insights with uncertainty giving rise to bullwhip effect. These issues can be addressed with the help of EDLP. By offering fixed low prices every day, any incentive to delay the purchase is removed, leading to a more uniform demand which is easier to forecast with more accuracy. This will reduce stock-outs as well as overstocking. Furthermore, by cutting down promotional expenses, we can pass on that benefit in terms of lower prices to customer. However, lower prices may affect long term profitability of business. Some consumers may perceive low prices as an indicator of low quality and can be detrimental to the brand. Consumers may start comparing private labels with Henkel which is also not desirable. EDLP can also reduce responsiveness to competitor and external environment. Pros (EDLP) Cons (EDLP) Assured customer base because of low price guarantee Less variation in demand, leading to Lower margins Lower perceptions of product quality and brand (consumers may interpret low price
better forecasting Reduced incidences of stock-outs/overstocking Reduced costs in terms of promotional expenses as an indicator of lower quality) May not be sustainable in the long term Reduces responsiveness to competitor and external environment 3. CRP and Demand Planning Continuous Replenishment Planning (CRP) is an inventory/logistics management initiative which aims to eliminate inefficiencies in the process of replenishment. It is a method of real time replenishment of products which aims at reducing inventory levels with minimized chances of stock- outs. In case of Henkel Iberica, customers negotiate and set a trigger point for replenishment based on historical data. Once the trigger point is reached, a reorder request will be automatically sent to Henkel. The advantage of CRP is that it streamlines the ordering process as well as provides more visibility to Henkel about the stock levels of their products at the customer’s warehouse. To make the customers accept the CRP model, Henkel guarantees service level of 99.8% downstream. Although CRP streamlined replenishment, separate forecasting plans for suppliers, manufacturers and retailers created problems for the supply chain. 4. Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) In order to improve the forecast accuracy, a new method known as Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) can be implemented. Using CPFR, the various stakeholders, namely the supplier, manufacturer, distributor and retailer join hands in planning, forecasting and replenishing consumer products. In the traditional method, the retailers and the manufacturers use their individual forecasting systems in order to ensure supply of products to the respective customers. The retailer generally uses Point of Sales (POS) data, desired inventory, desired customer service levels and historical information to forecast and set reorder points to the manufacturer. Once the inventory level drops, such reorder points are triggered to the manufacturer. The manufacturer on the other hand, uses its own individual forecasting method based on previous retail orders and historical information. This independent planning often results in increased lead time, decrease in customer service level along with inefficient use of working capital. The CPFR method attempts to eliminate such inefficiencies by bringing all the stakeholders in the supply chain to a common platform where they can share real time data on the internet and use a common forecast. Henkel can coordinate with its suppliers and the customers (retail businesses) and create a joint business plan with specific focus on aspects such as desired service level, inventory level targets, production plans etc. CPFR will help especially useful for Henkel as it operates in an industry where special promotions are frequent and the forecast of demand does not follow patterns. Moreover, with the uncertainty associated with special promotions, ‘exceptional’ demand forecasting can become more accurate. Pros (CFPR) Cons (CFPR) Integration between different stakeholders across the entire supply chain Centralized forecasting resulting in better accuracy Improved forecasting for exceptional Reduced out of stocks and optimum inventory levels Improved customer service levels High costs associated for implementation Difficult to implement, dissimilar data standards Significant changes required in the working style of various stakeholders
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Intangible benefits such as better relationships with suppliers and customers 5. Recommendations It is clear that the special customer specific promotions followed by Henkel is leading to an increased number of SKUs and reduced accuracy in forecasting. From the data given in the case, we can see that the sales decreased by around 14.79% (from 764 million euros to 651 million euros) in 2001 and at the same time the costs increased significantly. The increased cost is mainly due to rising number of SKUs and the difficulty in forecasting resulting in over stocking or understocking (lost sales). Hence in order to improve the situation going forward, we can think of recommendations both from the long term perspective as well as the short term perspective. Short term recommendation : Since implementing CPFR will take considerable time, some of the problems identified below could be solved using a combination of the below mentioned short term recommendations: 1. Improved branding : In order to stay ahead of competition, Henkel can look towards improved branding and advertising in order to differentiate the product. 2. Reducing the number of SKUs: Large number of SKUs add variability and complexity into the planning and production process. Henkel should consider consolidating the requirements and see if it would be possible to reduce and consolidate the number of SKUs. 3. Collaboration with larger retailers : Henkel can collaborate with the larger retail chains in targeted geographic regions so as to reduce the number of retailer specific promotions that they need to work on. Long term recommendation : 1. Implement CPFR: From a long term perspective, keeping in mind that Henkel operates in an industry where special promotions and offers are followed to differentiate from the competitors, Henkel can implement the CPFR system which will result in increased accuracy in forecasting. With CPFR, there will be increased coordination between the supplier, Henkel, distributors and retailers and real time sharing of data with common forecasting . The high cost needed to implement CPFR will be recovered in the longer term due to the various cost saving opportunities that come along with the CPFR. On the other hand, following EDLP will not be sustainable for Henkel in the longer term. The effectiveness of EDLP depends on the financial capabilities of other competitors to sustain a price war. In Henkel’s case, competitors like P&G, Unilever and Reckitt Benckiser are more than capable to compete on price . Furthermore, the increased costs resulting from the complex product portfolio reduces the effectiveness of EDLP. Unlike companies like Walmart, there are no cost benefits that could be passed on to the customers. Hence, we feel that Henkel should implement a CPFR system for long term benefits. The decision to implement could be corroborated by conducting a pilot study in order to show the benefits of CPFR to all the necessary stakeholders in the supply chain. 2. Rationalize and collaborate with suppliers: Henkel also has a large number of suppliers which allows Henkel to have a high responsiveness to the material and packaging requirements. However, it also requires more coordination effort. Henkel should study if they require such a high number of suppliers and if they can consolidate and reduce the number of suppliers. It will also lead to better prices being obtained by Henkel for the raw material. Furthermore, Henkel can help to develop
some of their major suppliers to build a more collaborative relationship with them. This may help to reduce the lead time for the packaging and raw materials.
APPENDIX A Price competition from private labels + Competition from national brands (new product launches/new variants) Large number of SKUs (product variants) + unique, retailer-specific promotions Complex forecasting lower accuracy Over-stocked Lower profit Sell at reduced price Under-stocked Lost sales Need for differentiation Unsteady operations High cost Obsolete stock Lack of common forecasting system
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help