Breaking the silos

Cleaning is not just a support function but a defining factor in performance and perception. Yet responsibility for cleaning decisions is often fragmented, with departments operating in isolation and value being lost in the gaps.

Cleaning influences indoor air quality, employee health, carbon reporting, asset longevity, labour efficiency and brand trust. When decisions about it are made in silos, even in businesses where cleaning is a clear differentiator, outcomes become reactive, inconsistent and unnecessarily risky.

A strategic approach requires a different model; one that treats cleaning as a shared, cross-functional responsibility aligned to wider FM and organisational objectives.

THE HIDDEN COST OF SILOED CLEANING

When cleaning is viewed solely through an operational or procurement lens, its true cost is obscured. Upfront product price becomes the deciding factor, with wider impacts, labour time, health risks, waste and environmental footprint; unmeasured.

This creates false economies. Ineffective products increase labour hours through repeated cleaning. Harsh chemicals may meet hygiene standards but contribute to poor indoor air quality, higher absenteeism and long-term environmental and health risks. Over-packaged or inefficient formats inflate waste management costs and Scope 3 emissions.

Research consistently shows that indirect impacts far outweigh product price alone. Scope 3 emissions can account for over 90 per cent of an organisation’s total carbon footprint, making cleaning-related supply chain decisions far more significant than many FM teams realise. Without cross-functional oversight, these costs remain hidden.

CLEANING AND H&S: MORE THAN COMPLIANCE

For health and safety leaders, cleaning chemicals represent one of the most consistent exposure risks in the workplace. People spend an estimated 80–90 per cent of their time indoors, and studies have linked frequent exposure to certain cleaning products with increased rates of asthma, respiratory disease and skin irritation.

While COSHH compliance is essential, compliance alone does not guarantee low risk. Ingredient selection, frequency of use, ventilation and training all influence exposure levels. When health and safety considerations are disconnected from procurement or operations, opportunities to reduce risk proactively are missed.

A collaborative approach enables FM teams to assess not just whether products meet regulatory requirements, but whether they actively support workforce wellbeing, reducing absenteeism, improving productivity and strengthening duty-of-care outcomes.

SUSTAINABILITY FORCING A RETHINK

For sustainability teams, cleaning is an often-overlooked contributor to environmental impact. Net zero commitments, plastic reduction targets and ESG scrutiny are forcing organisations to examine areas previously considered low priority.

Traditional cleaning products contribute to emissions through raw material extraction, manufacturing, transport and disposal. Packaging waste, particularly single-use plastic, adds further burden. Yet cleaning is rarely integrated into sustainability planning with the same rigour as energy, water or waste streams.

This disconnect creates reputational and compliance risks. If cleaning decisions undermine carbon reduction efforts elsewhere, inconsistencies become visible to auditors, investors and customers alike.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

For operations teams, cleaning directly affects productivity, asset maintenance and service quality. Poorly aligned cleaning strategies slow workflows, damage surfaces and equipment, and create inconsistency across sites.

When operations collaborate with procurement, sustainability and health and safety colleagues, cleaning can be optimised for efficiency and longevity. Standardised processes, rationalised product ranges and performance-led specifications reduce complexity while improving outcomes.

The result is the need for fewer stock cleaning product audits, reduced storage requirements, clearer training protocols and more predictable results.

FINANCE AND LEADERSHIP

For finance and senior leadership teams, cleaning is often viewed as a controllable cost rather than a value driver. Yet failures in cleaning strategy can have direct financial consequences: increased sick leave, accelerated asset replacement, regulatory penalties or reputational damage following hygiene or sustainability incidents.

When cleaning is framed strategically, it becomes easier to link decisions to measurable KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) such as cost-in-use, labour efficiency, risk reduction, sustainability performance and brand protection. This allows leaders to move beyond short-term savings and towards long-term value creation.

CROSS-FUNCTIONAL CLEANING

Breaking down silos starts with shared language and shared metrics. A strategic cleaning framework provides a common reference point, allowing different FM functions to assess cleaning decisions through the same lens, rather than optimising for individual departmental priorities.

A cross-functional cleaning framework typically considers five interconnected pillars:

• Wider cost, focusing on total cost of ownership rather than purchase price alone
• Health and safety, prioritising reduced exposure and safer indoor environments
• Sustainability, accounting for carbon, waste and lifecycle impact
• Efficiency, supported by evidence, testing and operational data
• Long-term resilience, ensuring strategies remain viable amid regulatory change and supply-chain disruption.

By using a shared framework, FM teams can move conversations away from isolated trade-offs and towards collective outcomes. Instead of asking whether a product is cheaper, safer or more sustainable in isolation, organisations can assess how cleaning decisions perform across multiple priorities at once, creating alignment, accountability and more resilient FM strategies.

If cleaning decisions are still being made in isolation, the real question is not whether inefficiencies exist, but who is accountable.