80% of savings aren’t where we usually look for them: how a CFO thinks when profits autumn

80% of savings are not typically found where we usually search.

How a CFO thinks when profits autumn Imagine you’re the CFO of a multinational and you see this news: net profit declining, pressure on results, internal transformation underway.

Your first thought isn’t “should I renegotiate the largest service contract?” .Your first thought is much more basic—and much more painful:

• “Are we truly conducting a fundamental review of expenditure?”
• “Which contracts and operational structures are eroding margins due to inertia?”
• “Which past decisions are depleting our EBITDA today?”
• “Where are the sustainable savings located?”

That CFO’s mind isn’t looking for quick fixes.

They are seeking enduring solutions.

‍

The Myth of the Big Decision

The corporate narrative tends to reward bold measures. Restructurings, unit closures, massive layoffs… they’re all visible, substantial, dramatic.

But in practice, the margin is eroded by less visible factors:

• indirect services that have not undergone review for several years,
• specifications that have broadened without rigorous scrutiny,
• automatic renewals executed habitually,
• demand structures inherited from a prior phase of the enterprise,
• absence of genuine external market benchmarks.

Each one individually seems minor. Together, they become structural.

And in a scenario where even giants like Nestlé are accelerating cost cuts to regain competitiveness, a CFO’s pain point is not just “cutting costs,” but rethinking how that spending is designed from the ground up.

‍

optimising isn’t about pressuring the supplier

optimising isn’t about haggling over price.

It is about redesigning.

In numerous categories, savings do not originate from “aggressive cost-cutting,” but rather from:

• adjusting the precise scope of the service,
• re-evaluating technical specifications,
• aligning frequencies and consumption levels,
• comparing terms with independent market data.

When the design of spending improves, the nature of negotiation changes.

It is no longer a fight over every discount point. It becomes a technical conversation about value, alignment, and efficiency.

‍

The cumulative effect: from 3% to 20%

A 3%, 5%, or 7% improvement in different categories may seem marginal when analysed in isolation.

But when these improvements are structural and recurring, the impact on EBITDA is sustained. It is not a one-off adjustment.

It is a more efficient cost architecture.

For companies that have systematised this review—not only in technology, but also in services, indirect procurement, fleet, or maintenance—the aggregate savings have been comparable to the restructuring targets announced by giants that are cutting staff to protect profits. That is no coincidence.

‍

Implications for the Finance Function

Structural optimisation requires:

• methodology
• external market benchmarking
• cross-functional coordination
• regular monitoring

It is not a project. It is a discipline.

And in environments like today’s, where even companies with economies of scale are seeing their profits autumn and accelerating efficiency initiatives, discipline is often more profitable than reaction.