WHITE PAPER HELPS MANUFACTURERS PRE-EMPT BREXIT THREATS The white paper includes
With it estimated that 53% of all UK imports in 2017 came from the EU, UK-based manufacturing businesses should be planning right now on how to pre-empt increased costs, delays and spare parts shortages affecting production line continuity, both in the lead up to, and following, Brexit. And yet, according to the
British Chamber of Commerce, nearly two-thirds of UK companies have still not carried out a risk assessment on the impact of a ‘No Deal’ (Hard) Brexit. Consequentially, large parts of the British economy are simply not prepared to minimise impact and maintain production output levels to satisfy customer demands. Amidst the political
uncertainty, Brammer Buck & Hickman - the industrial supplies specialist - has conducted its own Brexit survey amongst its supplier database. From this survey, Brammer
Buck & Hickman has identified seven key threats to production line continuity and stock maintenance, which have been detailed in the white paper – ‘Brexit: The Seven Major Risks To The Continuity Of Your Production Line That You Haven’t Considered’. The seven threats are: 1. Economic and financial 2. Supply chain 3. Customs compliance 4. New routes to market 5. Tariffs 6. Services not covered 7. Continuity of production
devised recommendations and plans for the various logistical impacts that Brexit will bring. A key example of one such threat can be found in the supply chain, where increased complexity and cross-border duties and regulations will in turn lead to increased costs and inventory management challenges for UK businesses. The amount of work required to manage this is likely to increase significantly. To read more on these
potential threats and use the Brammer Buck & Hickman diagnostic tool to highlight areas where you can help make your business ready ahead of Brexit, please visit:
https://www.brammerbuckand
hickman.com/pdfs/brexit.pdf
Want to keep up to date? Then follow us on Twitter: @CI_process and/or ‘Like’ us on Facebook!
When the Government’s Apprenticeship Levy was introduced back in April 2017, it was hailed as a way of increasing the uptake of apprenticeships and vocational training, and plugging the UK’s skills-gap. However, almost two years on, investors are being warned that there is a risk that they could lose their money. Addie Marks of Jonathan Lee Skills
Consultancy says, as of September last year, UK employers had deposited £2.7 billion into the Levy, but a mere 14 per cent of the total has been accessed and reinvested in staff training and development. Any money not used within 24 months is lost to the Exchequer, so the first contributions will be forfeit this April. Marks said: “Too many
companies are paying into the Levy and getting nothing in return.” The message is clear - if your
company has made Apprenticeship Levy contributions, then it is time to access the money, before it’s too late. Michelle Lea
Editor THE NEED TO LOOK BEYOND FIVE YEAR PLANS
The water industry needs to move beyond the five-year regulatory price review if it is to deliver for customers and the environment, Angela Smith MP told a gathering of over 200 water industry professionals at a British Water networking event. Addressing the association’s
annual Winter Reception, held earlier this month, she said: “The profile of those five-year investments doesn’t help the industry at all and I don’t think it helps the supply chain.” Instead she urged meaningful commitment to services and infrastructure development and “regulatory flexibility in terms of long-term planning for investment.” Smith, who is co-chair of the All
Party Parliamentary Water Group, praised the “new rigour” with which the regulator is discharging its responsibilities and agreed with Ofwat chief executive Rachel Fletcher’s view that it was necessary to “think about water companies as social enterprises.” Reflecting on the regulator’s initial assessment of
utilities’ plans for 2020-25, she advised them to be more ambitious. “Standards have to be raised in
every respect,” she said. “Challenge is necessary and the regulator needs to use its levers to ensure greater efficiency, better customer service and value for money.” Smith told attendees that in a
post-Brexit UK it will be even more essential for the sector to export its water expertise around the world. She also said she was “excited” by
the potential offered by smart technologies and outlined the pressures identified by the National Infrastructure Commission relating to climate change and population increase and “the need for measures to reduce the demand for water, increase supply and create transfer capacity.” She said: “...If a mutual option
were to emerge for commissioning and operating a new source of water supply, for instance, why would we not want to encourage that?”
www.britishwater.co.uk
Many food manufacturers consider digitisation will have a huge role to play in the future of the food sector – but the majority still see a number of hurdles that need to be overcome. This was a key finding of the 2018
CSB-System survey which canvassed the opinions of decision-makers within the food and beverage production industry across 29 countries. Respondents identified increasing retailer requirements, strict international legislation on food safety and traceability, and growing consumer demand for quality and freshness as key challenges that information technology (IT) could help to solve. However, the survey identified the
main barriers to digitisation to be lack of employee skills and low awareness of the solutions available. CSB says working with a suitable IT partner can help companies to tackle the four major issues, these being, the need for increased transparency; enhanced digitisation in marketing and sales; additional digitisation of factory processes; and improvements in quality and traceability.
www.csb.com
4 FEBRUARY 2019 | PROCESS & CONTROL
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
