Will the recommendation survive a cost challenge?
Keep the emissions boundary and all-in investment cost clear.
The question
You are presenting a fictional manufacturing work sample in Germany to finance and procurement leaders. Give a two-minute opening asking for an investment decision. The exercise gate is all-in simple payback of at most three quarters. These emissions use a defined plant boundary, not a legal environmental claim. Ignore tax, finance, downtime, discounting and maintenance changes.
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Previous electricity (MWh) | 200 |
| Proposed electricity (MWh) | 140 |
| Emissions factor (tonnes CO2e/MWh) | 0.4 |
| Other unchanged in-boundary emissions (tonnes CO2e) | 40 |
| Electricity tariff (EUR/MWh) | 180 |
| Quoted equipment capex (EUR) | 32400 |
| Maximum simple payback (quarters) | 3 |
An AI draft says “30% lower plant emissions.” Costs and savings must use the same quarter basis.
“Choose the exhibit, give the opening and defend the recommendation under questions.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Choose the claim boundary
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Present a 20% reduction within the stated plant boundary.
The strong move. The unchanged 40 tonnes belong in the total-emissions denominator.
Call a 30% electricity reduction a 30% total-emissions reduction.
Tempting, but it misses something. The 40 tonnes of other emissions do not fall with electricity use.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Electricity use falls 30%, but total plant-boundary emissions fall from 120 to 96 tonnes CO2e per quarter, a 20% reduction. I would title the exhibit with the 20% total result and show the electricity component separately.”
Why it works: The unchanged 40 tonnes belong in the total-emissions denominator.
Step 2: Present the decision
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
State the benefit, payback gate and conditional approval ask.
The strong move. The opening connects the exhibit to the panel’s cash and scope questions.
Give only the emissions percentage.
Tempting, but it misses something. The panel’s brief includes an investment cash gate that the emissions percentage does not answer.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Within this plant boundary, the proposal cuts emissions 20% and saves €10,800 per quarter at the stated tariff. The quoted €32,400 investment meets the three-quarter simple-payback gate. I recommend approval subject to confirming an all-in price.”
Why it works: The opening connects the exhibit to the panel’s cash and scope questions.
Step 3: Answer procurement
Procurement confirms the equipment quote excludes €10,800 of required installation. The electricity, tariff, emissions and savings assumptions stay unchanged. The panel’s three-quarter gate still applies.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Add installation and recalculate the payback.
The strong move. A required installation cost belongs in the all-in investment.
Keep using the equipment-only quote.
Tempting, but it misses something. Leaving out required installation understates the cash needed before operation.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Required installation takes all-in capex to €43,200. With savings still €10,800 per quarter, simple payback is four quarters. The emissions result stays 20%, but the investment no longer meets the stated gate.”
Why it works: A required installation cost belongs in the all-in investment.
Step 4: Revise the approval ask
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Name the failed gate and a concrete path to reconsideration.
The strong move. A valid benefit does not remove the panel’s stated approval condition.
Assume the emissions benefit overrides the approval authority.
Tempting, but it misses something. The exercise gives no authority to waive the three-quarter gate.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would not approve under the current gate. I would request an all-in price of €32,400 or less, ask the authorized owner for an explicit gate exception, or assess another option. The 20% emissions result remains valid; the all-in cost changed the approval request.”
Why it works: A valid benefit does not remove the panel’s stated approval condition.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Do not approve under the current payback gate.
- Because
- The required installation increases simple payback to four quarters.
- What would change it
- An all-in price at or below €32,400 or an authorized gate exception would change the decision.
Common traps
- Using a component percentage as the total.
- Presenting equipment cost as all-in investment.
Check your answer
- I named the emissions boundary.
- I answered the panel’s cash question.
- I included required installation.
- I changed the ask while keeping the valid benefit.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026