No Slide TitleGREEN PRODUCTIVITY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM JO-NA’S INTL. PHILS., INC. erick 1000.unknown Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. Jo-na’s International Philippines Incorporated, from its humble beginning and modest operations that started in 1981, has become one of the country’s pioneers in Food Preservation and Banana Chips Making. The company later expanded and recorded countrywide success in the manufacture of snacks and dehydrated and preserves fruits. erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. Bolstered by its wide acceptance in the local market, Jo-na’s ventured into export barely a year after it began operations. It started shipping the locally manufactured Banana Chips to the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan and other Asia Pacific Countries. Since then, Jo-na’s has expanded operations to become of the biggest exporters and suppliers of premium quality Banana Chips. erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. To cope with global trends, competition and changing consumer demands Jo-na’s continue to conduct extensive studies and researches, and at the same time engage in aggressive product development programs. It maintains seasoned Food Experts, Technicians and Quality Control Personnel to always ensure the quality of its product. erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. It has also undertaken measures and strategic moves to expand its source of raw materials thereby making the company known for its ability to meet its export commitments. Jo-na’s is known to pioneer in introducing Nata de Coco in Japan and was be able to pass its consumers high quality standard expectations and discriminating taste. erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. Up to present, Jo-na’s Nata de Coco is one of the leading brands in the Japanese Market. Towards the 1990’s, Jo-na’s started to strengthen its position in the local snacks market by introducing new products that revolutionize the snacks industry. erick Our Products: Tropical Fruit Preserves Awards Jo-na’s International Philippines Incorporated has consistently been nominated in various domestic, International Awards like, the International Awards for Food and Beverage. The company was awarded with the very prestigious Annual National Export Award, the Golden Shell Award in 1989 for its Excellence in Export Marketing , and the Industry Partner Awards by Industrial Technology Development Institute - Department of Science and Technology erick Export Market Jo-na’s products are now widely visible in Aruba, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Dubai, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Netherlands, New Zealand, Paris, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States of America, and etc. Local Market Jo-na’s products are nationwide visible Metro Manila, South & Northern Luzon, Visayas Region and Mindanao Region erick QUALITY POLICY Continues search for quality products and process improvements through Research and Development Building competency, quality conscious and reliable work teams Nurturing business partnership with our customers, suppliers and creditors. erick ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Jo-na’s International Phils., Inc. a manufacturer of Tropical fruits preserves, Noodles, and Snackfood products is committed to the well being of the family members and conservation of the life-sustaining resources. It is our policy to qualify all work processes so that activities are ecologically sound. Recognizing the profound impact of our activities to the people and natural environment we undertake the following measures to realize our fundamental policies; erick ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY COMPLIANCE We commit to comply to all applicable laws and regulation and other requirements pertaining to environmental impacts of the organization’s activities, products and services . Correspondingly, we will employ and comply to a safe and healthy operating systems, procedures and processes. erick ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PREVENTION OF POLLUTION We will adopt a pollution prevention program focused on reduction, re-use, and recycling of raw materials and wastes to protect life, property and the environment, especially for the discharge of waste water, emission of polluted air, and discharge of waste to land. erick CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT > Conserve natural resources > Ensure that all significant aspects and regulations are considered in setting up our environmental objectives and targets We Will: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT > Ensure that all personnel involved in the organization’s operations have appropriate training, each individual concerned understands the significant aspects and its corresponding impacts > Provide a mechanism to ensure that our employees, business partners, distributors and suppliers are made aware of this commitment. This environmental policy will be made publicly available. We Will: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. We develop nutritious, safe and affordable food products that cater to the increasingly discriminating tastes of people of all ages. We constantly improve on our standard quality products that have become everyday favorites and spawned a wide supporting cast of equally delightful and high quality food products. MISSION STATEMENT VISION STATEMENT We are people oriented. Consumers, Distributors, Suppliers, and Employees are partners in our growth and future. We are resource oriented. Employees are productive and work best in an enlightened and supportive environment. We constantly improve on quality standard of our products. erick VISION STATEMENT Wide acceptance of our products inspires us more and edifies all of us at JO-NA’S as well as our distributors and suppliers for we become effective instruments of GOD ’s abundance, goodness, and wisdom. We believe in the high worth and quality of our food products. Our business philosophy and self-esteem set us apart erick VISION STATEMENT Our social responsibility includes active participation in the preservation of ecological balance and environmental concern. erick - Joyful in our task 70% - Female 30% Male TOTAL HEAD COUNT 5S Program 3. 5S evaluators 5S Program 5S Program Evaluation/Inspection Committee 5S Program 1. Does the evaluation schedule for the month 3. Coordinate to Team leaders result of evaluation 2. Review the results 3. Prepared Corrective actions committee head erick 5S Program Head per team 2. Reviews the results 3. Prepares corrective actions committee head erick 5S Program Evaluation/Inspection Committee erick and winning team sections receives token, like 5S Program Awarding/Recognition Committee * office/dry production - 90% above 1. Preparation of Bi-monthly Inspection result per area department. is done during, first Wednesday of the Month, general assembly (all employees assigned to participating umbrella, towel etc.) and winning team sections receives token, like 5S Program Awarding/Recognition Committee 3. Awarding of 5'S Banner and token to the monthly 5S Champion umbrella, towel etc.) Value Formation Program ONCE A MONTH (7:30 - 9:00 am) Employees from the (old 5. General Announcement 2. Achievements 6. President's segment about the quality and productivity issues/concerns) employees - young once) Value Formation Program ONCE A MONTH (7:30 - 9:00 am) 2. Achievements 6. President's segment about the quality and productivity issues/concerns) erick Value Formation Program 4. Commentary commentary 5. Communicating the Company 7. Communicating the goal for the week of each section/department, to all employees Value Formation Program 7. Communicating the goal for the week of each Green Productivity Program SPONSORED BY: (Productivity Development Center) What is Green Productivity? GP is a strategy for enhancing productivity and environmental performance for overall socio-economic development. It is the application of appropriate productivity and environmental management tools, techniques & technologies to reduce the environmental impact of organization’s activities, goods and services. erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. GP concept aims to ensure environmental protection while making business profitable. It focus on quality, profitability and environment. The Practice of GP will result to effective use of resources such as (man, machine, material, method) including fuel, energy and keeping the quality of environment. erick “DOING MORE FOR LESS”, > Reduce / Recycle the water consumption > Reduce the energy/fuel consumption > Reduce man hour usage erick Why Jo-na’s Needs GP Program? No detailed plan to really focus on the pollution prevention, energy conservation, and process improvement Our operations process uses a lot of water about millions of liters per month Our electricity / energy / fuel cost is high Our garbage disposal cost is high Our product cost is high due to low efficiencies, a lot of rejections, wastages in the processes erick Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. Our waste water treatment plant is not complying with the standard Our people are lack on technical expertise in managing our environmental responsibilities To improve company profitability erick GP PROGRAM TOP MANAGEMENT erick Organization: a. Process improvement team b. Energy Conservation Team erick Organization: GP Methodology: root causes/Work shop/Training 4. Solution Formulation/ erick GP Methodology: 7. Monitoring and Review 8. Sustaining GP(incorporating changes (ISO14001 system) Step 1 Getting Started 2. Walk Through Survey Collection of baseline information b. Interview the operators, workers assigned in the working area erick 3. Identify Problems and root causes,(Man, Machine, Material, Method). a. Fish bone analysis/Ishikawa Diagram b. Ask 5 times WHY? Step 2 Planning a. SMART - Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time bound erick erick Lack of awareness of responsibility Poor maintenance erick Continuos outflow Continuos outflow Pending repair Lack of awareness EVALUATION OF GP OPTIONS 1. Controllable - GP options that can immediately fix, repair, implement without high cost needed, 10,000.00 below 2. Uncontrollable - GP options that cannot be immediately fixed, repaired, with investment cost of more than =P= 10,000.00 pesos, need cost and benefits analysis with payback period of projected savings. Step 3 Generation and Evaluation of GP Options erick Example chart EVALUATION OF GP OPTIONS erick data1 INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT received with received with Example illustration of uncontrollable GP options: GP options: Installation of Water recycling system Cost of investment GI Pipe 1 1/2 9 pcs =P= 570.00 =P= 5,130.00 GI Pipe 2’’ 8 pcs. 700.00 5,130.00 Elbow 2’’ 12 pcs 60.00 720.00 Tee 2’’ 6 pcs. 75.00 450.00 Check valve 2’’ 1 pc 365.00 365.00 Water Pump 2 HP 1 pc 16,000.00 16,000.00 Tank(10,000 liters) 30,000.00 30,000.00 Labor cost(piping installation) 5,000.00 After recycling plan 1,207.08 cu.m./year 48,297.60 Savings in water/year 8,207.44 cu.m/year 338,083.20 Cost of Investment 63,265.00 note: 1 liter = P=0.04 or 1 cu.m = P40.00 Other benefits are not yet quantified and costed but includes the reduction of water to be treated at WTP. erick Example illustration of uncontrollable GP options: GP options: Installation of Water recycling system Cost of investment GI Pipe 1 1/2 9 pcs =P= 570.00 =P= 5,130.00 GI Pipe 2’’ 8 pcs. 700.00 5,130.00 Elbow 2’’ 12 pcs 60.00 720.00 Tee 2’’ 6 pcs. 75.00 450.00 Check valve 2’’ 1 pc 365.00 365.00 Water Pump 2 HP 1 pc 16,000.00 16,000.00 Tank(10,000 liters) 30,000.00 30,000.00 Labor cost(piping installation) 5,000.00 After recycling plan 1,207.08 cu.m./year 48,297.60 Savings in water/year 8,207.44 cu.m/year 338,083.20 Cost of Investment 63,265.00 note: 1 liter = P=0.04 or 1 cu.m = P40.00 Other benefits are not yet quantified and costed but includes the reduction of water to be treated at WTP. erick Step 4. GP OPTIONS / IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Objective 1: regulations: work Step 4. GP OPTIONS / IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Energy Conservation Program Committee Water & Oil Conservation Program Committee Solid Waste Management Committee Team Leader 1. Qualities of the team leader: Should be available to devote time, accepts extra responsibilities 4. Good Motivator 6. Ability of organize the task 7. Ability to implement commitment 8. Good communicator 9. Good listener 12. Ability to do documentation and make a report 13. Results Oriented Person 2. Each Implementing Committees need to organize their own organization structure, to compliment the success of the program, to divide the duties and responsibilities to all team members. 3. Monthly Review will be conducted to monitor the progress of the committee activities. 4. All GP Options that will require capital investment need to present the cost and benefits / payback period. erick PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: a. Man b. Machine c. Material d. Method * GP OPTIONS: erick PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: 5. Achieved better quality products and higher productivity by reducing environmental aspects and impacts. erick GP OPTIONS/STRATEGIES: the following objectives: - to reduce water & oil consumption thru; 1. Thru Good Housekeeping by fixing all leaking pipes, change the diameter of hoses, faucet, instill strict discipline to the workers 2. Standardize the use of water for each process, put reminders/visual 3. Installation of water meter, recycling system, oil recycling system 4. Upgrading of Waste Water T. Plant > Modification of the design, > reduce WTP operating cost erick BENEFITS: 2. Reduce waste water discharge to WWTP, compliance to waste water discharge & environmental regulations. 3. Consumption is monitored and measured. 4. Continues study and search on how to reduce water & oil consumption. & monitor consumption GP OPTIONS/STRATEGIES: objective of implementing the following /GP Options: Waste Segregation System; generated from the source (production line) d. Introduction of re-use, re-sell, recycle * Formed a team that handles the Solid Waste Management Program Solid BENEFITS: Waste within the organization. 2. Reduce garbage (hauling expenses and disposal fees to land fill) and Volume of Garbage being disposed to land, compliance to environmental regulations. 3. Reduce Generation of Waste per line 4. Rejection per line is monitored & Analyzed (with target reduction of rejection). 5. All kinds of Dry waste are sold to junk shop except for foil. Solid GP OPTIONS/STRATEGIES: Objective; a. Thru good housekeeping; * steam pipes leaks repair, motors d. Maximize the capacity of each machines (full capacity loading). * * Formed a team that handles theEnergy Conservation Program. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM BENEFITS: 2. Improve safety within the organization 3. Consumption/usage is periodically reviewed and analyzed 4. GP team has the knowledge to measure and monitor consumption 5. Reduce the electricity consumption, fuel consumption (LPG,Diesel,Bunker) ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM Jo-na’s International Philippines, Inc. Step 5. MONITORING AND REVIEW A. Monthly Monitoring of each Team’s activities and results of GP Options Implementation 1. Once a week meeting of Team members 2. Bi-monthly meeting of Core Team 3. Once a month meeting / reporting to Top Management of the GP Implementation Plan progress status and measured results and achievement erick MEASURED BENEFITS SUMMARY OF MEASURED SAVINGS (all dry waste can be sold except for = P= cost =P= cost (waste cans) aluminum foil) (11 % decrease) (January - August) total cost: total cost: 4,903,554.18 4,014,391.50 889,162.68 111,145.35 =P= =P= =P= =P= =P= 147,000.00 =P=147,000.00 note: The penalty and waste water note: our waste water treatment plant has been upgraded, operations only started last week.(5/24) contractor in the computation of savings. Operating cost note: our waste water treatment plant has been upgraded, operations only started last week.(5/24) Sheet2 Sheet3 erick Sheet7 wwtp Waste Water Analysis Comparison WTP-Process electricity consumption Equalization tank minimal cost Purchased Transfer Pump Garbage Collection Fees 2001 vs 2002 Water Usage comparison 2001 vs 2002 2001 vs 2002 unit: Cubic Meter Electricity Cost - in terms of '=P= Peso value 2001 vs 2002 October - 0 - 0 - 0 November - 0 - 0 - 0 Electricity Usage (kW) comparison savings: Months 2001 2002 July 0.234 0.21 0.024 October 0 November 0 December 0 Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison December 0 Efficiency comparison November 0 total 52.52 49.36 -3.16 %savings( )unfav/favorable Efficiency comparison erick Sheet7 wwtp Waste Water Analysis Comparison WTP-Process electricity consumption Equalization tank minimal cost Purchased Transfer Pump Garbage Collection Fees 2001 vs 2002 Water Usage comparison 2001 vs 2002 2001 vs 2002 unit: Cubic Meter Electricity Cost - in terms of '=P= Peso value 2001 vs 2002 October - 0 - 0 - 0 November - 0 - 0 - 0 2001 vs 2002 unit rejection/case '=P= Bunker Fuel Usage (liter) comparison 2001 vs 2002 savings: Months 2001 2002 August 0.2006 0.1961 0.0045 Electricity Usage (kW) comparison savings: Months 2001 2002 July 0.234 0.21 0.024 October 0 November 0 December 0 Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison November 0 total 52.52 49.36 -3.16 %savings( )unfav/favorable Efficiency comparison erick Sheet7 wwtp Waste Water Analysis Comparison WTP-Process electricity consumption Equalization tank minimal cost Purchased Transfer Pump Garbage Collection Fees 2001 vs 2002 Water Usage comparison 2001 vs 2002 2001 vs 2002 unit: Cubic Meter Electricity Cost - in terms of '=P= Peso value 2001 vs 2002 October - 0 - 0 - 0 November - 0 - 0 - 0 Electricity Usage (kW) comparison savings: Months 2001 2002 July 0.234 0.21 0.024 October 0 November 0 December 0 Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison December 0 Efficiency comparison November 0 total 52.52 49.36 -3.16 %savings( )unfav/favorable Efficiency comparison erick Sheet7 wwtp Waste Water Analysis Comparison WTP-Process electricity consumption Equalization tank minimal cost Purchased Transfer Pump Garbage Collection Fees 2001 vs 2002 Water Usage comparison 2001 vs 2002 2001 vs 2002 unit: Cubic Meter Electricity Cost - in terms of '=P= Peso value 2001 vs 2002 October - 0 - 0 - 0 November - 0 - 0 - 0 Electricity Usage (kW) comparison savings: Months 2001 2002 July 0.234 0.21 0.024 October 0 November 0 December 0 Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison December 0 Efficiency comparison November 0 total 52.52 49.36 -3.16 %savings( )unfav/favorable Efficiency comparison erick Sheet7 wwtp Waste Water Analysis Comparison WTP-Process electricity consumption Equalization tank minimal cost Purchased Transfer Pump Garbage Collection Fees 2001 vs 2002 Water Usage comparison 2001 vs 2002 2001 vs 2002 unit: Cubic Meter Electricity Cost - in terms of '=P= Peso value 2001 vs 2002 October - 0 - 0 - 0 November - 0 - 0 - 0 Electricity Usage (kW) comparison savings: Months 2001 2002 July 0.234 0.21 0.024 October 0 November 0 December 0 Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison December 0 Efficiency comparison November 0 total 52.52 49.36 -3.16 %savings( )unfav/favorable Efficiency comparison erick Waste Water Analysis Comparison WTP-Process electricity consumption Equalization tank minimal cost Purchased Transfer Pump Garbage Collection Fees 2001 vs 2002 Water Usage comparison 2001 vs 2002 2001 vs 2002 unit: Cubic Meter Electricity Cost - in terms of '=P= Peso value 2001 vs 2002 October - 0 - 0 - 0 November - 0 - 0 - 0 2001 vs 2002 unit rejection/case '=P= Bunker Fuel Usage (liter) comparison 2001 vs 2002 savings: Months 2001 2002 August 0.2006 0.1961 0.0045 Electricity Usage (kW) comparison savings: Months 2001 2002 July 0.234 0.21 0.024 October 0 November 0 December 0 Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison Efficiency comparison November 0 total 52.52 49.36 -3.16 %savings( )unfav/favorable Efficiency comparison TOTAL SAVINGS =P= 1. Garbage disposal (Jan-August)19 truck loads of garbage 3 truck load of garbage cost of paint: '=P= 1,000.00 (all dry waste can be sold except for= P= cost=P= cost(waste cans) aluminum foil)60,518.18 10,081.82 60,518.18 7,564.77 unit rejection/case'=P=unit rejection/case'=P= 2. Production Rejects(Jan-July)1.086 0.975 negligible/minimal cost (please refer to separate data sheet) (11 % decrease) (Packaging mat and Raw materials)total cost:total cost: 640,401.60 519,087.50 121,314.11 17,330.59 kg output/hr kg output/hr (please refer to separate data sheet) ( 6 % increase in eff.) liters used/kilo outputliters used/kilo outputcost of:pipes-stainless,hose 4. Water consumption(Jan - April)14.8811.31 hose (small diameter),=P=10,000.00 ( 34.65 % decrease) recycling ssytem: 581,452.80 500,572.80 80,880.00 10,110.00 payback: 8 months 5. Electricity Consumptionkwh used/kilo outputkwh used/kilo outputcost of : rewiring, motors, (January - April)0.201250.179675 Y delata connection. (11 % decrease ) =P= 150,000.00 1,025,388.00 846,350.04 179,037.96 44,759.49 payback: 3.35months 6.Fuelliters used/kilo outputliters used/kilo output* note: with change on process (retorting temperature from Bunker fuel (January-April)0.1944750.191675105 degrees to 120 degrees, month of March to April (1.5 % decrease)* no savings in terms of ' Peso value note: to improve the cone design ofcost:=P=cost:=P=this means that the cost of per unit kilo went up firing tube, installation of pre-heater1,404,485.72 1,657,850.92 (253,365.20) (from =P9.42/liter to 11.00/liter) for feed water not yet installed. LPGliters used/kilo outputliters used/kilo output (January - March)0.06400.0645no savings from peso value, this means that .07 % increasecost of per unit kilo went up, from "P18.47/liter note: GP options not yet cost:to '=P=25.00/liter) implemented327,002.12 227,213.50 (99,788.62) 7. Waste Water operationsaverage influent:average influent:20- 30 cu/daycalculation of savings on operating 70-80 cubic meter/day50 -60 cubic meter/daycost against investment is not yet note: our waste water treatment plant has been upgraded, operations only started last week.(5/24) computed Indicators 2001 (all dry waste can be sold…