United chemical leasing

United Nations Industrial Development Organization - Chemical Leasing, www.bipro. de/ clhome/index.htm... 

The unit of payment is of high importance in Chemical Leasing. In contrast to traditional business models the basis of payment is not the amount of the chemical used (e.g., in per ton) but functional units like "m2 cleaned surface". 

The principle behind these units of payment leads to a "less is more" situation - this means higher earnings for the supplier within Chemical Leasing while less chemicals are provided. And it means higher earnings for the user because its costs are reduced. In Chemical Leasing models the added value is shared between the partners. Efficiency increase is the interest of both partners both partners have a commercial interest in reducing the consumption of chemicals as both partners increase their profits. 

For the dissemination and the establishment of the ChL business model in different industries and different countries a clear definition of ChL is essential. As the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) plays a leading role in the development and implementation of ChL around the world, it was UNIDO that defined - together with an international working group -the term of Chemical Leasing (see Chapter 2). 

Quick scan survey of the industrial processes at plant level to get an initial overview of the processes and technologies used as well as a collection of basic data, e.g. amount of chemicals used, cost of chemicals purchased, number of pieces or other indications that might be used as unit of payment2 in the Chemical Leasing contract. 

The quest for a measurement unit correlating with the use of the auxiliary material could lead to serious problems for small users since production fluctuations can influence the consumption strongly. For this reason it will be necessary to further develop the model of Chemical Leasing. 

Only after Pearl Harbor did the United States government discover how Farben had also stopped the flow of crucial war materials from America to its lend-lease allies. Magnesium was the best example. The arrangement between Farben, the Aluminum Company of America, and the Dow Chemical Company not only had limited production within the United States but had fixed it so that all quantity exports from the United States went only to Germany. Thus Great Britain and the rest of Europe became completely dependent on Farben for magnesium. 

The very buildings housing the Chemical Warfare Laboratories in Britain and the United States bear testimony to the alternating enthusiasm and coldness of post-war governments. Many of them might have been pulled down years ago. Instead they have been given a new lease of life by the addition of yet another coat of paint or varnish. 

While the total quantity of British chemical warfare materials furnished the United States Forces was small, and while only token deliveries were made in 1942, awareness of British capability and British reserves was nearly the only reassuring gleam in the dark chemical supply picture from July 1942 to July 1943. The entire gas warfare retaliatory potential depended on British resources for most of that period. CWS ETO officers measured the British contribution as much or more in terms of their willingness to co-operate and their readiness to provide technical and operating experience data as they did in their provision of supplies under reverse lend-lease. ... 

---