KKR

KKR, cutting costs–and pollution

February 18, 2009

When Casey Stengel managed the woeful ’62 Mets, he’d lament, famously, “Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game?” Some days, I ask that question about the people who run corporate America, and I’m not just talking about mortgage brokers and Wall Street risk managers.

The latest data point leading me to wonder whether executives running big companies know what the heck they are doing comes from the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund and the private equity firm KKR, which formed a partnership last spring, and announced today that, after studying the operations at three KKR-owned companies, they had identified about $16 million in cost savings that also produced meaningful environmental benefits. Here’s the press release.

This is welcome news, of course. U.S. Food Service, a big food distributor, saved $8.2 million in fuel costs through better driver training and technologies that turn off trucks when idling or set maximum speeds. Primedia, which publishes magazines and websites for home buyers and tenants, saved $2.9 million in material costs by shrinking paper sizes and putting more content on the Internet. Sealy Corp., the nation’s biggest bedding manufacturer, saved $4 million by recycling the raw materials, like cotton and wood, used to make mattresses. These initiatives all delivered environmental as well as cost benefits, so EDF and KKR have reason to be pleased.

“We were just experimenting, and look what we found,” says Gwen Ruta, EDF’s vice president of corporate partnerships. An EDF news release described the results as “a high note in a low economy.”

Well, sure, but doesn’t it make you wonder why all that money was wasted before a bunch of young and likely underpaid environmentalists came along to kelp KKR and its managers run their companies? I had always thought that what the private equity guys did best was to improve operations (i.e., squeeze costs) at the companies they buy.

When I asked Gwen Ruta about this, she acknowledged that none of the changes ushered in by the EDF-KKR partnership required technology breakthroughs or top-to-bottom reengineering of manufacturing processes. “None of this is rocket science,” she said. “You just need to be more thoughtful about what you are doing.”

U.S. Food Service, for instance, advised the drivers of its trucks not to step too hard on the pedal when starting up after making a full stop. Funny, I recall hearing that in a driver ed class, oh, about 40 years ago.

Ruta further explained that KKR had found the efficiency gains after working with EDF to devise new ways to analyze company operations. U.S. Food Service decided to measure how many gallons of fuel the company burned to move each ton of product. By tracking that metric, they improved efficiency by 4%, a significant gain. Similarly, Primemedia began looking at paper use per dollar of revenue and Sealy began to measure how much scrap it throws away per manufactured bed. There’s an old adage in business that “you can’t manage what you don’t measure,” and so by measuring waste and fuel efficiency, these firms are better able to manage them.

The argument here—and I think it has merit—is that by looking at company operations through the fresh lens of sustainability, managers will discover new opportunities to save money and reduce their environmental impact. If they are smart, they also will unleash the creativity of their workers, who really know how and where money is being wasted. Wal-Mart learned that when it began  rethinking its operations as part of a company-wide sustainability campaign.

KKR and EDF now plan to extend their efforts to other KKR-owned firms in North America and Europe. They will also make their methodology available to anyone who asks; that’s required when companies engage with EDF, which doesn’t take any corporate donations for its advice. I’m very pleased that Gwen Ruta (below), Ken Mehlman, the head of global public affairs at KKR, and Bob Aiken, the CEO of U.S. Food Service, have all agreed to speak in April at FORTUNE’s Brainstorm Green conference about business and the environment.

(Disclosure: I’ve got a contract with EDF to write a report about environmental innovations in business.)

{ 4 comments }

Biz and NGOs: too cozy?

November 14, 2008

Only a mindless anti-business zealot (and unfortunately there are still too many of those) would argue that environmental groups should not cooperate with big business when they have shared interests. Even activist groups like Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace work closely with big companies like Citigroup and Coca-Cola, to help them make their operations more efficient or their strategy more environmentally friendly.

But there’s lots of debate about whether NGOs should accept money from their corporate partners. Does it compromise their independence? Threaten their credibility? Or enable them to bring in more money, and therefore have a bigger impact? That’s the topic of today’s Sustainability column.

By coincidence, I spent the day at the Net Impact conference in Philadelphia where corporate-NGO partnerships were one topic on the agenda. (Net Impact is an organization of business students and young business people who are committed to using business to make the world a better place. Some 2,400 people attended the very impressive event at Wharton.) I moderated a conversation about a corporate-NGO alliance with John Brock, CEO of Coca-Cola Enterprises and Carter Roberts, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, and then listened to another where Ken Mehlman of private-equity firm KKR and Elizabeth Seeger of Environmental Defense Fund talked about their work together. CCE’s Brock and KKR’s Mehlman both said their firms got real value out of the partnerships—in terms of advice on how to better manage their operations, and from the public-relations value of the association with a green group. ”If we’re going to save the plant, we’re going to do it by making a profit,” says Mehlman. “That is the only way tit will be truly sustainable.” (When private equity firms, which are notoriously unsentimental, get serious about “going green,’ then you know the business case has become truly compelling.)

Interestingly, CCE and its sister company, Coca Cola, pay the WWF for its advice, and make donations to the group to help restore rivers and streams. But no money changes hands between KKR and EDF.

There are good arguments for both models, and you can read them in the column. My belief is that the NGOs, at a minimum, need to be transparent about their dealings with business. That is, they need to disclose how much money they are taking from their corporate partner over what period of time, and what services they are providing in return. One controversial partnership, a deal between the Sierra Club and Clorox, fails to meet this test. Here’s how the column begins:

Some environmentalists attack bottled water. Not Conservation International, a Virginia-based nonprofit that aims to protect the earth’s biodiversity.

When Fiji Water announced a sustainability initiative last spring to help protect forests on the remote Pacific Island of Fiji, Conservation International Peter Seligmann praised the move.

“We applaud Fiji Water for offsetting the climate impact of its products, reducing the impact of its operations, and funding crucial conservation efforts that support local communities and protect some of the last remaining forests in the South Pacific,” he said in a Fiji Water press release.

The endorsement didn’t surprise anyone who understands the relationships between Fiji Water and Conservation International. The privately-owned bottled water company pays Conservation International – neither party would say how much – to finance the work they do together. Stewart Resnick, who owns Fiji Water with his wife, Lynda, sits on Conservation International’s board and donates to the group.

Such cozy arrangements are increasingly common as big companies work side-by-side with big NGOs (non-government organizations). Clorox secured the endorsement of the Sierra Club – and the use of its logo — for a line of eco-friendly cleaning products, called GreenWorks that the company introduced late last year. Neither will disclose how much cash is involved.

You can read the rest here.

{ 3 comments }