As Mitie’s Chief Procurement Officer, and with years of procurement experience, I’ve seen how both approaches impact the ways contracts operate on the ground.
To conclude this five-part series on local vs global FM, I’ve detailed the considerations you should take to be sure your partner’s approach aligns with your cultural, social value and sustainability goals.
A commitment to sustainability and enhancing communities is essential for every organisation’s future success. Whether you opt for a local or global FM partner, it’s important they share your cultural values and principles.
Going local
Self-delivered local contracts enable organisations to build a sense of ownership and pride among colleagues, fostering a positive company culture. Local providers understand their local workforces and are able to create simple lines of communication. From a cultural perspective, they are attuned to behaviours and expectations, and therefore best placed to implement ways of working that keep colleagues happy. Hands-on management offers individuals opportunities to develop their careers and skills within the organisation. Local FM also creates jobs, at varying levels of seniority, within the immediate area, as well as nationally. This benefits the wider community and economy, supporting social value credentials.
Local solutions also bring sustainability benefits. Being in-country, distances travelled by goods and people are reduced, lowering fuel consumption and carbon emissions. This is critical for organisations committed to reaching net zero.
Going global
Global FM partners must procure labour in-country and follow relevant laws on wages and tax. There can be communication challenges between local teams and the central procurement team, based out of country, due to language and cultural differences. Frustrations can arise if locally-based colleagues feel they are hampered from conveying concerns or participating in decision making.
Do bear in mind that with the most senior levels of management operating abroad, they may lack the local insights and cultural awareness to reflect expectations of colleagues on the ground. This can cause further frustration. A global solution, managed from a global headquarters, also means social value potential may not be fully realised in the country where the contract is delivered. The boost to the local economy, as well as opportunities for career progression, will be compromised. This is because the globally-procured FM solution concentrates financial functions and senior levels of management outside the country. There will be reduced economic benefits and advancement potential for local professionals.
You should also be aware that a global solution can increase carbon emissions. Senior personnel may be required to travel long distances, potentially by plane, to oversee elements of the contract. The smooth running of services may also involve more transportation of goods from abroad. As the challenge of reaching net zero by 2050 becomes clearer, and with increased focus on scope 3 emissions in supply chain, environmental consequences of global FM should be weighed up.
When making your choice between local and global FM, consider the following:
- Is a positive people culture important for my organisation?
- In addition to the performance of the contract, am I focused on creating social value?
- Could this solution hamper my organisation’s journey to net zero?
To read my full analysis of local and global FM, check out my mini-guide: Locally sourced FM to secure your success.
Locally sourced FM to secure your success
A CPO’s mini-guide to answering the ‘Local or global?’ FM conundrum.
