When a business with more than one site, vehicle fleet, team or outlet wants to improve something, such as energy use, waste, safety, quality or cost, the simplest approach is a single rule. Every site cuts energy by 15%. Every outlet installs the same equipment. Every team follows the same program. Uniformity looks fair, easy to explain and easy to check.
But a common goal does not mean the same action is best everywhere. Sites differ in the age of their equipment, their energy supply, their product mix, their customers, their buildings, their climate, their staff and their local rules. An action that makes a big difference in one place can be marginal in another. A target that is easy for one site can require a large investment at the next. Treating every site the same can spend money where it achieves least and leave easy gains untouched.
This article explains why identical targets can produce poor results, how to keep a common goal while letting each site choose the path that suits it, how to allocate effort to where it achieves most, how to compare sites fairly and how to stop legitimate differences becoming permanent excuses.
Causes differ from place to place
A 2017 study by Xu and colleagues of manufacturing emissions across regions of China used a method designed to show how relationships vary by location, rather than producing one average relationship for the whole country. It found that the influence of drivers such as economic growth, urbanisation and energy efficiency on emissions differed materially between regions, and concluded that different regions needed different actions.
The setting is far from a small Australian business, but the principle is the same: when the causes of a result differ between places, the same action will not be equally effective everywhere, even when the goal is shared. Other research points the same way. The emissions from sending waste to landfill, for example, depend heavily on local conditions such as the waste mix, climate and whether landfill gas is captured, so the benefit of diverting waste differs from one area to another.
Equal targets, unequal effort
Suppose a business with five sites sets each a 20% energy reduction target. The rule is equal. The effort is not.
- One site has just installed efficient equipment and has already captured most of the easy savings.
- Another has old compressors, poor controls and obvious waste.
- A third has grown its production while the others have stayed steady.
- A fourth leases its building and cannot change the major systems.
- A fifth runs in a hotter climate with heavier cooling loads.
An identical percentage asks the first site to find expensive savings while letting the second stop well short of what is easily possible. The total result is worse than it could have been for the same money and effort.
Standardise the outcome, not the intervention
A better approach separates four levels:
- The goal: what the business wants to achieve, and why. This should be common.
- The decision rules: how options will be judged, such as cost, payback, risk, evidence and effect on the goal. These should also be largely common.
- The local path: the actions each site chooses, based on its own causes and constraints. This should vary where evidence supports it.
- The checking: how the business verifies that each site’s path is credible and its results are real. This should be common.
The result is controlled differentiation: a shared direction and shared standards, with local choice about how to get there. It sits between a head office that dictates the same solution everywhere and sites that do whatever they like.
Averages hide what is happening locally
Businesses need summary figures, but averages can hide both problems and opportunities. Average energy use can improve while one large site gets worse. Average waste figures can hide one site sending far more to landfill because it lacks a local recycling service. A single business-wide number tells the owner where performance is heading. It does not tell anyone what to do about it.
Two views are needed at once:
- The overall outcome, for accountability.
- The local causes, for action.
Put effort where it achieves most
Imagine three sites with the same energy use:
- Site A can make substantial savings through low-cost changes to controls and maintenance.
- Site B needs a moderate equipment upgrade.
- Site C would need to replace a major asset years before the end of its life.
Spreading the budget evenly may overspend at Site C while leaving Site A’s cheap savings unfunded. A better question is where each additional dollar, hour of staff time and disruption achieves the greatest improvement, subject to minimum standards everywhere.
This does not mean ignoring difficult sites forever. Site C may need a larger change when its equipment is due for replacement. It means sequencing investment sensibly, and recording when each site’s larger opportunity will arise.
A useful measure is the cost of the next unit of improvement at each site. If it differs widely, the sites are on different curves and should not be managed as if they were the same.
Local conditions change the value of the same action
The same action can be worth very different amounts in different places:
- Solar panels may be very valuable at a site with high daytime electricity use and a suitable roof, and much less so at a leased site with a shaded roof or mainly night-time use.
- Water-saving equipment may be urgent in a water-restricted area and a modest cost saving elsewhere.
- Battery storage may add resilience where the power supply is unreliable and little value where it is stable.
A program rolled out everywhere needs a context map, not just a rollout plan: for each site, what does this action actually achieve here?
Compare sites fairly
Comparisons between sites are useful, but only if they account for conditions the site does not control. Adjust, or normalise, figures for factors such as production volume, product mix, weather, operating hours and building type. Otherwise, sites are rewarded or blamed for their circumstances rather than their management.
For example, energy use per tonne produced, adjusted for the number of hot days, is a fairer comparison between two sites in different climates than raw energy bills.
Stop “we’re different” becoming an excuse
Local variation is real, but it can also become a permanent defence against improvement. Differentiation needs evidence: a site claiming its situation is different should be able to show what drives its results and why the standard approach would not work there. Then it should commit to its own path, with its own measures.
Who decides what
Clear decision rights make controlled differentiation work:
| Head office or owner decides | Each site decides |
|---|---|
| The goal and minimum standards | What causes its results |
| How results are measured | Which actions to take |
| What evidence is required | The order and timing of actions |
| How money is allocated | How changes are adopted day to day |
| When an issue must be escalated | How to show the results are real |
This needs more discipline than a single rule, not less.
Common goal, different path: seven steps
- Set the goal in measurable terms, without prescribing the solution.
- Group sites by the factors that matter: equipment age, energy supply, climate, growth, product type, building ownership and staff capability.
- Diagnose local causes using each site’s own data.
- Build a list of acceptable actions with the evidence each requires: controls, maintenance, equipment upgrades, fuel or energy changes, process redesign, purchasing changes or staff training.
- Allocate money by value and necessity, keeping minimum standards everywhere.
- Normalise comparisons for conditions sites do not control.
- Review periodically, because a low-priority site can become high priority after growth, equipment ageing or a change in energy prices.
A worked example
This is an illustration. A refrigerated food distribution business has three depots: a large metropolitan depot and two smaller regional depots. The owner sets a goal of reducing energy and fuel costs by 15% over two years, with a budget of $60,000. The first proposal from the operations manager is uniform: spend $20,000 at each depot on rooftop solar and LED lighting.
Before approving it, the owner asks each depot manager to diagnose what drives their costs:
- Metropolitan depot: refrigeration accounts for most electricity use. The plant is old, door seals are worn and cold-room doors are often left open during busy periods. Low-cost options include door curtains, better controls and a maintenance overhaul.
- First regional depot: the building already has efficient lighting and newer refrigeration. Most of its cost is vehicle fuel. Options include route planning and driver training.
- Second regional depot: the building is leased and the roof is unsuitable for solar. Options include pre-cooling during cheaper off-peak periods, tighter temperature controls and reviewing the electricity tariff.
The owner compares the two plans, using estimated savings:
| Depot | Uniform plan | Estimated annual saving | Differentiated plan | Estimated annual saving |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metropolitan | Solar and LED, $20,000 | $9,000 | Controls, door curtains, maintenance, $25,000 | $18,000 |
| First regional | Solar and LED, $20,000 | $6,000 | Route planning and driver training, $15,000 | $14,000 |
| Second regional | LED only (no solar), $20,000 | $4,000 | Off-peak pre-cooling, controls, tariff review, $5,000 | $6,000 |
| Total | $60,000 | $19,000 | $45,000 | $38,000 |
The differentiated plan is estimated to save about twice as much a year for $15,000 less, with a simple payback of about 1.2 years compared with about 3.2 years. The remaining $15,000 is held for the metropolitan depot’s refrigeration plant, which is due for replacement in three years, when a larger investment, possibly including solar, can be considered.
The owner also sets fair comparisons: electricity per pallet stored, adjusted for hot days, and fuel per delivery, adjusted for distance. Each depot manager reports on their own measures monthly, and the owner checks the overall 15% goal quarterly. The figures are estimates, but the pattern is common: the uniform plan felt fair and achieved half as much.
How this applies to a small Australian business
Many small businesses have more than one location, vehicle, outlet or team, even if they do not think of themselves as multi-site. Practical steps:
- Set one goal, but do not prescribe one solution.
- Ask each site, vehicle group or team what actually drives its results.
- Compare the cost of the next improvement at each site.
- Check what an action achieves locally before rolling it out everywhere.
- Normalise comparisons for volume, weather, product mix and hours.
- Require evidence before accepting that a site is different.
- Sequence larger investments to match equipment replacement dates and lease terms.
- Review priorities as conditions change.
The articles on from footprint to drivers and standardise the routine, not the thinking cover related approaches.
Signals worth watching
- Identical targets producing very different costs at different sites.
- Repeated requests for exemptions from a central program.
- A pilot that worked at one site disappointing elsewhere.
- Similar sites with very different results.
- Overall figures improving while a few sites get worse.
- Site managers unable to explain what drives their own figures.
- Budgets spread evenly regardless of opportunity.
Common mistakes
- Equating fairness with identical targets.
- Rolling out one site’s solution everywhere without checking local conditions.
- Spreading money evenly instead of where it achieves most.
- Comparing sites without adjusting for conditions they do not control.
- Accepting “we’re different” without evidence.
- Treating the plan as fixed when conditions change.
Frequently asked questions
Isn’t it simpler to have one rule for everyone? Simpler to announce, yes. But it is often more expensive and less effective. A common goal with local paths takes a little more thought and usually achieves much more for the same money.
How do we stop sites choosing only easy actions? Set a common goal and minimum standards, require evidence for each site’s diagnosis and review whether each site’s plan is ambitious enough relative to its opportunity.
What if a site genuinely cannot improve much? Record why, the conditions that would change that, such as lease renewal or equipment replacement, and when they are expected. Then plan for that point.
How do we normalise comparisons without complex analysis? Choose one or two simple adjustments that matter most, such as output volume and weather, and apply them consistently. Perfect adjustment is not necessary to make comparisons much fairer.
Does this apply to safety or quality targets? Yes, with care. Minimum standards for safety and legal compliance must apply everywhere. Above those minimums, the actions that improve results can reasonably differ by site.
Questions to ask
- Which of our goals genuinely require the same action everywhere, and which only require the same outcome?
- What local factors change the value of our current improvement programs?
- Are we comparing sites fairly?
- Where are cheap opportunities going unfunded because money is spread evenly?
- Which sites need a larger change at a future replacement or lease date?
- How do we tell legitimate difference from excuses?
Bringing it together
A shared goal does not require identical action. Keep the goal, the decision rules and the checking common, and let each site choose the path that suits its own causes and constraints. Allocate money where the next improvement is cheapest, check what each action achieves locally, compare sites fairly and require evidence before accepting that a site is different. The question is not whether every site is doing the same thing. It is whether every site is making a defensible contribution to the same result.
Source: KEVOS notes, drawing on published research including Xu and colleagues (2017) on regional variation in manufacturing emissions and Lee, Han and Wang (2017) on landfill gas emissions, Journal of Cleaner Production. Examples and figures in this article are illustrations.
