← Back

Finding the $100M: COGS Reduction at Scale

How systematic cost analysis across global operations reveals opportunities hidden in plain sight

The CFO was skeptical. “We’ve been in this business for decades. Our sourcing team knows every supplier. If there were $100 million in savings, we would have found it.”

Three months later, we had found it. Not through exotic strategies or aggressive supplier squeezing, but through a systematic approach that the organization had never applied: comparing what the same product cost in different regions.

The Hidden Fragmentation Problem

Global companies often believe they have global sourcing. They have suppliers in multiple countries. They have international procurement teams. They negotiate contracts across borders.

What they often don’t have is global visibility. The same SKU might be produced by the same factory for three different regional subsidiaries - at three different prices. Nobody knows because the data lives in different systems, with different item codes, in different currencies.

This is how $100 million hides in plain sight.

The Analytical Framework

The approach that worked wasn’t complicated. It was systematic.

Step 1: Establish a Common Language

Before comparing costs, you need comparable items. This is harder than it sounds.

Different regions often use different product codes for the same item. The purple widget might be SKU-12345 in North America and WIDGET-PUR-001 in Europe. The factory might know them by a third code entirely.

Creating a master item mapping is tedious, unglamorous work. It’s also the foundation without which nothing else is possible. Budget significant time for this step - it typically takes longer than expected.

Step 2: Normalize for Comparability

Once you can identify the same item across regions, you need to compare costs fairly. This requires normalization for:

Currency - Use consistent exchange rates across all comparisons. Spot rates introduce noise; consider trailing averages.

Incoterms - A price FOB Shanghai is not comparable to a price DDP Chicago. Normalize to the same delivery basis.

Volume - A price for 10,000 units isn’t comparable to a price for 1 million. Account for volume tiers.

Timing - A 2022 price isn’t comparable to a 2024 price. Raw material indices may have moved significantly.

Step 3: Compare and Rank

With normalized data, comparison becomes straightforward. For each item:

  • What is the lowest achieved cost across all regions?
  • What is the gap between each region and the lowest cost?
  • What is the total spend at each region?

The savings opportunity is: (Regional Gap) x (Regional Volume).

Rank items by opportunity size. The Pareto principle applies aggressively - a small percentage of SKUs will represent the majority of savings opportunity.

Step 4: Investigate the Gaps

A gap is not yet a savings. Before declaring opportunity, understand why the gap exists:

Legitimate reasons:

  • Different quality specifications
  • Different regulatory requirements
  • Different service levels (lead time, minimum orders)
  • Transportation cost differences

Addressable reasons:

  • Different negotiating leverage
  • Different supplier relationships
  • Historical inertia
  • Lack of visibility

Only addressable gaps are true opportunities. This investigation phase requires talking to the sourcing teams, not just analyzing spreadsheets.

Step 5: Develop Actionable Recommendations

For each confirmed opportunity, determine the capture mechanism:

Price negotiation - Show suppliers the benchmark price achieved elsewhere. This is often sufficient for closing gaps of 5-10%.

Supplier shift - Move volume from higher-cost to lower-cost suppliers. Requires capacity assessment and qualification.

Specification harmonization - If gaps exist due to different specs, determine if specs can be standardized across regions.

Volume consolidation - Aggregate regional volumes to achieve tier pricing not available to individual regions.

Each mechanism has different implementation complexity, risk, and timeline. Size the prize for each and prioritize accordingly.

Why Companies Miss These Opportunities

If the analysis is straightforward, why don’t companies find these savings themselves?

Organizational silos - Regional procurement teams are measured on regional metrics. Nobody owns global cost optimization.

System fragmentation - ERP systems weren’t designed for cross-regional analysis. Getting clean data requires effort that operational teams don’t have bandwidth for.

Incentive misalignment - Buyers are often measured on cost-per-unit at time of purchase, not total cost of ownership. Switching suppliers is risky; maintaining the status quo is safe.

Relationship value - Procurement relationships develop over years. Showing a buyer that they’ve been paying 15% more than necessary doesn’t feel like good news to them.

Overcoming these barriers usually requires external pressure - a mandate from leadership, a crisis, or an outside perspective.

Implementation Realities

Finding the opportunity is perhaps 30% of the work. Capturing it is the other 70%.

The Negotiation Phase

Suppliers don’t automatically accept benchmark pricing. They will argue:

  • The comparison isn’t apples-to-apples
  • Their costs are genuinely higher due to factors X, Y, Z
  • Switching suppliers is riskier than it appears

Some of these arguments will be valid. Engage with specifics, not dismissals. The goal isn’t to win an argument - it’s to reach a price that reflects market reality.

The Transition Phase

If volume shifts are required, implementation takes time:

  • Qualification of new suppliers (especially in regulated industries)
  • Tooling and setup costs
  • Learning curve on quality and delivery
  • Contractual obligations with existing suppliers

Build realistic timelines. A theoretical savings that takes three years to capture has a much lower present value than the headline number suggests.

The Sustainability Phase

One-time savings mean little if costs drift back up. Build mechanisms for sustainability:

  • Regular cross-regional benchmarking (quarterly or annual)
  • Clear ownership of global cost metrics
  • Incentive alignment for procurement teams
  • System improvements to enable ongoing visibility

The Broader Lesson

The $100 million wasn’t created by sophisticated analysis. It was created by applying basic comparative analysis to data that existed but had never been assembled.

Most large organizations have similar opportunities hiding in their operations - not necessarily in sourcing, but in areas where:

  • Decisions are made locally without global visibility
  • Data exists in fragmented systems
  • Nobody’s job is to optimize across silos

The analytical skill that finds these opportunities isn’t statistical sophistication. It’s the discipline to ask simple questions systematically: “What does this cost elsewhere? Why is it different? Can we close the gap?”

Organizations that build this capability as a muscle - not a one-time project - find savings repeatedly. Those that treat it as an event find savings once, then watch them erode.

Cost reduction at scale is less about finding exotic savings and more about bringing visibility to fragmented operations. The opportunity usually isn’t hidden - it’s just spread across systems and geographies in ways that nobody has assembled before.