Cases, Food, Logistics and bulk storage, Manufacturing
From heightened supervision to structural grip
Sept. 24, 2025
The context
A large international industrial company came under increased supervision by the Environment Agency due to operational challenges with their production processes. The company experienced significant problems with the control of their industrial processes, which led to increased emissions and odors that impacted the environment.
The situation was particularly sensitive because the increased supervision was public and generated national media attention. This literally put the company “in the dock” with all the reputational risks that entailed. At the same time, normal business operations had to continue, while there was great pressure for improvement from various stakeholders.
The question
The company faced the complex challenge of drawing up and implementing an adequate improvement plan within the set deadlines that would meet the requirements of the supervisory authority. However, when the enhanced supervision was instituted, the exact reason was not clear to the environmental service, which made the situation even more complex.
The core question was twofold: on the one hand, drawing up a structured and communicable improvement plan that would lead to the lifting of the enhanced supervision, and on the other hand, effectively managing all internal and external stakeholders involved during this sensitive process.
Our approach
Together with the environmental service, we first set clear objectives to remove the uncertainty surrounding the cause. We then developed a structured improvement approach that was approved by the environmental service.
The result
Our approach consisted of four main elements:
Structuring the process: We converted the identified shortcomings into a communicable and structured improvement plan, in which all improvements were concretely worked out and planned. This plan focused on several project areas, including process optimization, temperature control, and major maintenance of critical facilities[3].
Stakeholder management: We designed and implemented a follow-up and communication structure that kept all stakeholders involved, both internal and external, well connected. This included special attention to the sensitivities and different interests within the organization.
Monitoring and coordination: We organized progress accountability for all stakeholders and monitored the implementation of the improvement plan.
Gradual handover: Once the implementation was structured and controlled and all stakeholders were well connected, we slowly handed over the baton to the client.
The success of this approach was based on five crucial factors:
Experience with complex oversight processes: Our extensive experience with similar situations enabled us to effectively structure the process and adequately supervise all stakeholders.
Clear communication and transparency: By working with the regulatory body from the beginning to establish clear objectives, we created a foundation of mutual understanding and trust.
Structured project approach: Turning vague deficiencies into concrete, measurable improvement actions provided clarity and follow-through.
Effective stakeholder management: By properly engaging and regularly informing all stakeholders, we avoided conflicting interests and created support for the improvement approach.
Gradual ownership: By gradually handing over the baton once the processes were mastered, we ensured that the client could eventually continue and complete the process independently.
This case demonstrates how a structured, experienced approach to enhanced supervision not only leads to technical improvements, but also to restoring trust among supervisors and stakeholders.