Following the recent government announcement of plans to prohibit all petrol and diesel vehicles by the year 2040, Britain is weighing up the idea of switching to ‘green’ driving more than ever before.
New research from leading comparison website MoneySuperMarket has delved into the mind of the consumer to determine just how viable this switch is. The research reveals factors such as the true cost of making the switch to electric driving versus driving a petrol or diesel car. It also explores the number of charging points currently available in major UK cities, a key factor in the viability of the plan to turn the UK electric.
The research also highlights the lack of knowledge currently being shared on the benefits of driving electric and public concerns about the feasibility of the 2040 ban.
Is the British Public Prepared?
With 49% of the British public stating that they have never considered purchasing an electric or hybrid car, it appears that education and pricing are crucial factors in the public’s apprehension to go electric. Some of the key findings from the research include:
51% of people surveyed stated price is currently the biggest barrier to them buying an electric or hybrid car.
Nearly 30% of people don’t buy electric or hybrid cars due to lack of knowledge of how they work.
62% of people don’t know that the Government offers discounts and grants on buying an electric or hybrid car
The True Cost of Driving Green
Beyond public opinion, cost is a major factor in the sustainability of the plan to move to electric and a concern for the public as a whole. Fundamental findings on the cost of buying and running electric, petrol and diesel cars revealed that, although cheaper to run, electric cars are not the most cost-effective motor to own overall. Some findings on the cost of running each car type include:
While the upfront costs of petrol vehicles were the lowest, the average running costs of an electric car are 20% cheaper than diesel and petrol engines, with an average saving of £2,109 across 6 years.
Filling up your petrol or diesel car is 5 times more expensive than electric.
Petrol cars boast the lowest average insurance premium (£697.19), whilst electric remains the most expensive to insure at £923.
If drivers switch to electric in 2018, they’ll save almost £8,000 on running costs by the time the ban is enforced.
Taking Charge in 2040
The government’s plan to turn the UK into a nation of electric car drivers rides not only on the cost of the cars over their lifetimes, but also on the feasibility of fuelling these vehicles. Having an appropriate number of public charging points will be key for the success of Britain’s electric switchover.
Data collected on the number of electric car charging points available to drivers in UK cities bring into question whether the UK as a whole is truly ready for an electric revolution. Whilst the capital performed well, with 210 charging points in Central London, other cities fell short. Large cities such as Liverpool and Cardiff had fewer than 10 raising questions over the preparedness of major UK cities for 2040.
For the full details on the true cost of driving green and how the UK is shaping up, click here to see the full research.
Methodology
To create an average for each fuel type, an average was taken of 3 of the top selling cars from petrol, diesel and electric respectively. Data for the upfront costs of each of the 9 vehicles were taken from their brand’s site as well as costs of servicing, road tax and MOT prices. The ‘lifetime’ was measured as 6 years with the average mileage of 7,900 miles a year entered onto the site nextgreencar.com to determine the fuel costs. The overall costs for each model were made into 3 separate averages for electric, petrol and diesel fuel types. The models used included:
- Ford Fiesta Style – Petrol
- Volkswagen Golf – Petrol
- Ford Focus – Petro
- Skoda Superb Estate – Diesel
- Vauxhall Astra Hatchback – Diesel
- BMW 3 Series Saloon – Diesel
- Renault Zoe Signature – Electric
- Nissan Leaf Acenta – Electric
- BMW i3 – Electric
In order to find out the number of electric car charging points per city, the site www.zap-map.com was used.
(Source: MoneySuperMarket)
Mark Hixon is a Partner at global advisory firm Transform Performance International with over 25 years’ experience advising Fortune 500 companies on their cost management solutions. Here he provides Finance Monthly with 7 ways to manage costs and what considerations to make.
Not long ago, British Airways suffered a huge and unprecedented system failure. Flights were grounded, and the plans of thousands of passengers were at best disrupted and at worst ruined. The scenes at Heathrow and Gatwick were predictably chaotic, and there were suggestions that had the airline not outsourced its IT work, the incident might have been avoided. This, and other recent events, have brought the negative impacts of cost reduction to the fore once again--but it’s unfair.
Cost reduction, when done properly, merely serves as an improvement to a business. It should never be used as an excuse to defend process failures. Of course, there are times when organisations change their service standards and the impact needs to be understood, but these changes should never manifest as process failures. When this is the case, it almost certainly stems from failing to consider the consequences of not funding certain levels of service.
Many organisations embark upon cost reduction or cost management programmes but almost as many fail to deliver the required benefits. Some organisations even find themselves worse off. For nearly 20 years at Transform Performance International, we have worked with clients to improve their existing cost management programmes, and have a found a pattern of recurring errors, all of which can be prevented.
Solution: Use an analytical approach to set targets. In recent years there has been a great deal of intellectual debate as to how to set targets. We successfully developed an analytical approach to segmenting the cost base and setting targets based on activity classifications. This is a non-confrontational way of defining targets.
Solution: Each person on the leadership team should be set a target and these targets should be embedded into their objectives: ‘failure to hit the target = failure to achieve their bonus’. Businesses should also set end-to-end process targets that require collaboration.
Solution: Define a programme of work that considers how savings may be achieved within the various business areas and then apply the tools and techniques appropriate to each area.
Solution: Hold an executive workshop where a range of ideas are put forward and apply what you learn to frame the overall programme of work.
Solution Segment the cost base and analyse it to find out how much of it is addressable, how much is fixed and how much is variable. Fixed or variable analysis should provide data on how costs vary with volume as well as time.
Solution: Use an activity-based approach to collect data that enables the root causes of cost to be collected. By collecting the data in a structured manner you will be able to see how much of the cost base is affected by each specific root cause.
Solution: All ideas and suggestions should be assessed in terms of their impact on customer service and the overall risk they pose. Some cost management techniques, such as zero-based budgeting, have this type of risk assessment embedded within the methodology: i.e., every service level is characterised not only by the resource and cost requirement, but also in terms of the consequences of not funding it.
Morguard Corporation recently released its 2016 Sustainability Report, demonstrating positive results across environmental, social and governance (ESG) indicators. Understanding the priority investors place on Responsible Property Investing (RPI), Morguard's approach was a key driver in its successes in sustainability.
Morguard's approach to RPI is a best practice in the Canadian real estate industry. Incorporating environmental, social and governance indicators into property business and capital plans, provides investors with critical insights and allows Morguard to manage and operate efficient buildings. With a direct correlation between RPI and investment performance, this process results in value creation and operational excellence.
Demonstrated Results Over Time
Sustainable Morguard, the company's sustainability program, established in 2009, has produced numerous successes. In its first five years, from 2010 to 2015, Morguard's property management teams achieved a 14% reduction in energy consumption, a 24% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 19% reduction in water consumption.
In 2016, Morguard adjusted to a 2015 baseline and continued to reduce environmental impacts including energy consumption (2.8% reduction), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (3.3% reduction), water consumption (1.1% reduction) and waste to landfill (2.0% reduction). These results saved an estimated $1.6 million in operating costs for office and retail tenants over a one-year period.
Morguard is committed to investor disclosure and was an early adopter of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 sustainability reporting framework in 2010, including the Construction and Real Estate Sector Supplement (CRESS). For 2016, Morguard updated its framework to the new 2017 "GRI-Standard" and refreshed its materiality assessment to ensure sustainability programs and disclosures meet the needs of key stakeholders.
"These results recognize the strong partnership we have with investors, clients, tenants and employees" said K. Rai Sahi, Chairman and CEO, Morguard Corporation. "There is a strong commitment from our key stakeholders to invest time and effort in sustainable initiatives to achieve positive environmental and community benefits."
Green buildings benefit stakeholders through lower costs for tenants; improved health, safety and welfare of employees, tenants and visitors; protection of the environment; and contributes to strong financial performance for investors and shareholders.
2016 Report Highlights
Energy
Greenhouse Gas
Water Use
Certifications
Occupational Health and Safety
Morguard is proud to be named one of Canada's Safest Employers for four consecutive years. The recognition is a clear indication of the strong employee and tenant engagement with its Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) strategy. Morguard develops its programs internally to facilitate greater control, customization, and clear lines of accountability. Investment in these programs ensures the company maintains the highest standards of health and safety in its owned and managed real estate portfolio.
Community Involvement
In addition to efforts in environmental and health and safety, Morguard also plays an active role in supporting the communities in which it operates. In 2016, Morguard participated in several community improvement projects, such as park and playground rebuilds, pedestrian walkways, bike paths and public space. Morguard also supports its communities through charitable giving and food drives.
In 2016, Morguard launched a national social cause marketing campaign, BeYou, at its 21 owned and managed shopping centres in Canada. In partnership with Big Sisters of Canada, the goal for the campaign was to increase self-esteem, personal growth and self-worth and empower young girls aged 9-16. A total of 12,861 girls registered and participated in events across the country, and the campaign successfully achieved more than 81 million media impressions. This engagement will provide long-term positive benefits in our local communities.
(Source: Morguard Corporation)
From the bitcoin to regulatory functions, here Alexander Dunaev, COO at ID Finance, discusses the need for cooperation in the fintech segment and touches on five vital steps for the sustainable growth of one of the largest emerging sectors in the financial sphere.
Ronald Reagan once succinctly summarized the US government’s view on regulation the following way: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it”. Taking the UK as an example, financial technology is worth c.GBP7billion and employs around 60,000 people - safe to say, the sector is on a roll. On top of the direct economic effect, one has to consider fintech’s wider broader economic impact from lowering the lower cost of credit or insurance, improving the level of financial inclusion and reducing financial transaction costs across remittances, payments and investments.
Of course any industry is prone to missteps along the way. The few examples for fintech globally include the proliferation of Ponzi schemes in China together with the growth of P2P lending, the use of bitcoin for illegal purchases and investor misleading at Lending Club that brought the demise of the company’s founder. Nonetheless, since the industrial benefits are beyond reproach, the ball is in the regulator’s corner to curb the excesses, streamline the judicial framework and establish the rules of the road for the multi-faceted and rapidly ascending Fintech industry.
There is clear recognition worldwide that regulation is needed to ensure long-term and sustainable growth. At the end of last year, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a division of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, proposed to create a federal charter for non-deposit banking products and services – a major change for a country with state-by-state financial regulation which could lower barriers to entry for companies looking to innovate the financial services industry. While the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney has recently stressed the need to create holistic infrastructure to support the flourishing sector.
Having had first-hand experience in a regulated financial services industry from Brazil to EU and Central Asia, I believe there are a number of clear steps that can drive the growth of fintech globally.
1. Clear communication with the industry
Although it may appear obvious, it is critical for the regulator to engage with the fintech industry in gaining an optimal understanding of the needs of the industry. Obviously the industry is only one of the voices, but in the environment of rapid technological and economic change, it makes sense to get first-hand information. This may help the regulator to prioritize and focus on solving strategic issues.
2. Share regulatory functions
As much as is possible, regulatory functions have to be shared. The fintech umbrella covers multiple industries: consumer and corporate lending, insurance, payments to name a few. In our experience it makes sense to functionally compartmentalize the regulation. For instance, the central bank or consumer protection bureau division regulating consumer lending by the banks should be regulating the similar area of fintech activity. This makes sense from the perspective of synchronized standards for consumer protection. It’s in everyone’s interests to have a unified set of standards on anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-client (KYC) information disclosure as well as collection practices. Furthermore, incorporating fintech regulation together with mainstream financial services firmly places the former into the center of regulatory attention.
3. Focus on creation of new infrastructure
Any government should be actively seeding, sponsoring and promoting what Mark Carney calls “hard infrastructure” for the new breed of financial services companies. This type of infrastructure is more often too much of a burden even for shared corporate investment, yet its potential benefits are clear for any country. The area of focus should be within payments, settlement, identification and data access. One of the best global examples of the sovereign strategic thinking on the subject is undoubtedly Aadhaar in India – a biometric ID system with over one billion enrollees or most of the country’s adult population. This gargantuan project coupled together with the country’s recent clamp down on hard cash in the economy can really change the lives of hundreds of millions of its citizens by actively encouraging financial inclusion.
4. Share the use of existing infrastructure
While creation of the infrastructure is clearly needed, there is lower hanging fruit for driving industrial competitiveness available to regulators globally. First and foremost it is key to empower the citizens to take ownership of their data held by large incumbents including mainstream financial services (banks, insurance companies) and telecom companies. The way to do this is through the mandatory sharing of this information to third parties, obviously with the explicit consent of the ultimate data owner. While on the one hand it enables the latter to monetize the data and get access to more competitive offerings, this also enables the fintech firms to focus on what they do best: deploy cutting edge technologies and data analysis in targeting market inefficiencies. The prime example of data sharing is the PSD2 directive in the EU that is forcing banks to open up the trove of transactional data to third-parties via API. This initiative is clearly laudable and should be mirrored by regulators globally.
5. Introduce 5-year road maps
Regulatory uncertainty acts as a major overhang, preventing the industry from developing. First and foremost this uncertainty stops the flow of capital into the industry creating a massive earning multiple compression. This further prevents the reinvestment of capital due to the increase in uncertainty. It’s important to emphasize that in the fintech world global players with technological know-how have optionality over geographical expansion. All else being equal, these companies will always invest in the countries with the most transparent rules of the road. This implies that the countries that take an ambivalent position are in a precarious position of losing out.
The future of the fintech industry will not be shaped by market adoption and technological advances alone. The role of the government in fostering fintech and steering it in the direction of sustainable growth is key.
