Case study Henkel Romania

Transcription

1 Case study Henkel Romania Nicolae Olteanu, President Henkel Romania Albert Şutru, Operations Director CEE South, Adhesives Bucharest, February 28, 2012

2 Summary 1. Henkel business in Romania 2. EU Funding - Henkel experience 3. Conclusions

3 1. Henkel in brief Henkel worldwide Fiscal 2011 Three areas of competence Brands and technologies worldwide About 47,000 employees Sales: 15,605 mill. euros Adjusted 1 operating profit (EBIT): 2,029 mill. euros Adjusted 1 return on sales (EBIT): 13.0 % Top brands Laundry & Home Care Beauty Care Adhesive Technologies 1 Adjusted for one-time charges/gains and restructuring charges.

4 Henkel in Romania Established in 1994 as affiliate company of Henkel Central Eastern Europe Net Total Sales 2011: 130 mil. EUR (542 MRON) in Top 10 countries Henkel CEE Over 500 employees in Romania 2 Head offices in Bucharest 2 operational plants and the 3rd plant will be opened soon Henkel is operating in Romania based on the principles of sustainable development, by balancing its economical, ecological and social objectives.

5 Henkel Romania: responsible citizen The first private company in Romania who invested in an ecological & educational program in the Danube Delta: Together for a clean Delta ( ) The first company in Romania to invest in an educational program in the schools all over Romania: Henkel in Schools (over 100 schools were visited during ) The only company in Romania who rewards every year the most talented Romanian contemporary artists: Henkel Art Award (the 1 st CEE winner was Dan Perjovschi in 2002) First social/charity project started in 2001 (Petrila Day Care Center/ Save the Children) and continued ever since then.

6 Henkel Romania- Brand portfolio Beauty Care Laundry & Home care Adhesive Technologies

7 Henkel Investments in Romania Production units (Adhesives) 1. Pantelimon (opened in 2000) Production capacity: tons/ year Total investment: >15 mil. EUR Additional investment to increase the energetic efficiency (cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund) Implementation: Campia Turzii/ Cluj county (opened in October 2007) Production capacity: tons/year Investment : ca. 12 Mil. Eur Ongoing initiatives to decrease the resource consumption

8 Henkel Investments in Romania (II) 3. Roznov/ Neamt county (NE part of RO) Total area: sq m Production capacity: to/year cca. 25 mio EUR/year 2.8 mil. EUR financing/ EU (total investment: 10.7 mil. EUR) 72 employees 2 1 ROZNOV Production sites 1. Pantelimon 2. Câmpia Turzii 3. Roznov Henkel invested in Romania, only in Production > 35 mil. EUR

9 Henkel plant no.3 - Roznov

10 2. EU Funding - Henkel Experience Henkel applied for 2 projects 1.Increase of energy efficiency in Pantelimon plant through change in sand dry technology -total project value RON -total eligible amount RON from which 40% EU financing RON -non-eligible amount RON 2.Henkel Romania implication in sustainable development of North- East region, Roznov adhesives plant -total project value RON -total eligible amount RON from which 50% EU financing RON -non-eligible amount RON

11 2. EU Funding - Henkel Experience First project was less complicated Very good cooperation with authorities Successful project from our perspective Second project (greenfield investment) was more complicated SWOT analysis where we will present our experience from 2 points of view: Internal: Henkel Romania perspective (business related) External: society, social involvement

12 Strengths S Free financing through non-reimbursable EU funds Production & sales increase Exports increase Positive social impact: New working places in a non-favored area Taxes for the local budget Community involvement/local social project

13 Weaknesses W Applicant guideline is unclear, leading to misunderstandings and interpretations and redundant requirements from Authority. Lack of communication between Authority and Beneficiary as well as between different departments of the Authority/Ministry We missed the partnership between Authority and Beneficiary, although both should benefit from the EU funds. Authority is too circumspect. We faced a lack of responsibility at all levels and areas Difficult to follow the change of legislation/rules during project implementation Delays in answers from the authority as well in the reimbursement process Piles of files to be prepared; each page must be signed and stamped

14 Opportunities O Attract other companies in the area (increase interest of other serious investors) opportunity for the community. Stimulate local community (economical, social, etc.).

15 Threats T Uncertainty and delays in receiving all contracted amount Facing the threat of possible cuts of the funds in case of irregularities

16 3. Conclusions/recommendations An external consultant with good expertise is prerequisite for a successful project It is advisable to apply for EU funding only in case own financing resources are available. A real partnership between Authority and Beneficiary is a must. For green-filed projects at least one dedicated person (project manager) is necessary

17 Thank you!