Words: Helena Morgan
In satisfying an increased appetite in the cleaning and facility management sectors to optimise spend without sacrificing standards, organisations would be remiss to underestimate the value of a traditionally overlooked yet vital asset: cleaning chemicals.
As Bunzl Australia & New Zealand Category Manager, Cleaning Chemicals & Janitorial Malcolm Barclay explains, the industry is shifting away from transactional purchasing. “Across the FM sector, the conversation is steadily shifting from unit price to total cost of clean,” he says. “Smarter chemical selection is playing a key role in that shift.”
As Nowchem managing director John Lamont observes, the industry shift is now firmly anchored in intent and outcomes. “The focus is shifting from what product we use and how much it will cost per litre or drum, to what problem we are solving and what success actually looks like,” he says.
Agar Cleaning Systems managing director Steve Agar and Accord executive director Damian Mitsch add that ongoing training in dosing systems and prioritising sustainable choices allows organisations to select cleaning chemicals that protect equipment and extend asset durability.
This approach also ensures consideration of soil and surface combinations, while reducing labour time and operational risks.
Lamont reinforces this broader reframing of value across chemical selection and application. “In an industry under constant pressure to do more with less, smarter chemical choices are proving to be one of the most effective ways to redefine value, not by spending more, but by cleaning smarter,” he says.
The right product, at the right strength, for the right task
As cleaning chemicals determine asset condition, maintenance cycles, labour efficiency and overall cleaning outcomes, it is imperative for organisations to employ a fit for purpose product selection. “The objective is not just to use fewer chemicals. It is to use the right product, at the right strength, for the right task,” Agar says.
“When product selection is treated as part of an ongoing maintenance strategy, rather than a one off purchasing decision, outcomes become more stable,” Agar adds. “The best decisions are made when product choice is discussed in the context of the asset, the task and the standard expected at the site.”
To thoroughly clean surfaces, cleaning chemicals must align with both the surface and the soil type, subsequently extending the longevity of coatings, finishes and materials and avoiding restoration and ongoing maintenance.
Barclay says one of the industry’s most persistent blind spots remains labour efficiency. “Chemicals that require longer dwell times, multiple applications or frequent rework can significantly erode productivity,” he says. “In a labour-constrained market like Australia, this often becomes the hidden cost that undermines overall efficiency.”
Agar says thoughtful product selection also controls labour efficiency, as an appropriately matched product removes soil in fewer passes. Less rework and fewer corrective steps lends itself to a consistency that elevates overall cleaning outcomes across shifts and sites, exemplified through the use of a neutral and low residue floor cleaner on sealed floors, as Agar discusses.
“When the correct product is used, it removes soil without attacking the protective coating,” he says. “This helps maintain gloss levels, reduces the need for frequent recoating and allows teams to clean efficiently without dealing with streaking or residue build up.”
Misaligned chemistry teases operational and safety risks
Mitsch outlines the hazards that can come from poor and hasty product selection. Although products can technically perform at incorrect doses, there is a risk of sacrificing efficiency and effectiveness. “The costs of incorrect product selection in some environments can go beyond just the chemical,” he warns. “Residue build up accelerates equipment wear, drives unplanned maintenance and creates safety risks that are avoidable with the right product selection from the outset.”
Mitsch speaks of his experiences overseeing cleaning businesses within the healthcare industry. A philosophy of prioritising the right product, at the right dose, at the right place and time enabled an efficient, stable and most importantly safe system that avoided residue build up in equipment and wastage.
“The businesses I ran used chemical systems because they were designed to take product selection and dosing out of the hands of chance,” he explains. “Whether that was computerised dosing in laundries or manual dispensing systems in bathrooms, it paid for itself many times over.”
Mitsch underlines the hazard of allowing price to dictate product selection, rather than aligning chemistry with soil and surface, as an inexpensive product can pose safety risks and equipment damage. In healthcare, the ramifications of using products anchored by misaligned chemistry are noted in impacted patient outcomes. “A poorly selected product can lead to residue on floors that create slip hazards, incorrect products in food preparation areas leading to contamination risks and ineffective disinfectants allowing pathogens to survive on surfaces,” says Mitsch.
Barclay agrees that poor alignment between chemicals, equipment and surfaces creates costly downstream impacts. “Using aggressive formulations on sensitive materials can lead to premature wear, corrosion, or damage, particularly on high value assets such as flooring systems, fixtures and specialist equipment,” he says.
Agar corroborates Mitsch’s view that incorrect chemistry leads to surface damage such as staining, corrosion and dulling, as well as rework, excessive labour time and critically unsafe conditions for workers and building users. “From a safety perspective, using unsuitable products can introduce unnecessary risk,” he says. “This includes increased exposure for users, as well as compatibility issues with certain materials or environments.”
Within this context, Lamont adds a systems level perspective that reinforces how chemistry performs beyond isolation. “The real value of a chemical is revealed not in isolation, but in how it functions within the cleaning system as a whole,” he says.
Combating challenges by considering the full cleaning process
Obstacles can emerge from cleaning chemicals that tick all the boxes, mainly performance optimisation and asset durability, as Agar and Mitsch discuss. Agar maintains, however, that avoiding the tendency to rely on broad claims and distil decisions down to price can address such challenges and avoid an illusion of efficiency.
“A product that works well in one setting may not deliver the same outcome in another,” he says. “Product selection should be assessed in the context of the full cleaning process, rather than broad claims that can create inefficiencies over time.”
Mitsch highlights the complexities of product selection and the implications that can emerge from generalisation and approximation. “A general product requires more labour to achieve the result and can create problems such as residue or surface damage, which a fit for purpose product would avoid,” he says. He also prescribes ongoing collaboration and consultation with manufacturers as an effective way to select an appropriate and specialised product.
“Cleaning is not a single problem,” he says. “Different surfaces and different soils require different chemical approaches to achieve the best outcome. Manufacturers are valuable and underutilised and can advise on the limits of applicability and avoid the wrong product in the wrong place.”
Importance of full picture training in dosing systems
When discussing the value of dosing systems, Agar emphasises the need for further training and support. “Although automatic dispensing systems are designed to remove discretion from the cleaner, there is still a need for clear training to build confidence in using a structured system, particularly in areas with high staff turnover,” he says.
Dispensing systems streamline processes and achieve consistency, however under dosing and over dosing errors resulting from a lack of training impede labour efficiency.
“Over dosing can lead to residue, increased costs and potential surface damage, whereas under dosing may result in poor cleaning outcomes and the need for rework,” Agar says .
Barclay says integrated systems are becoming increasingly essential across large facility portfolios. “Automated dilution and dispensing systems not only ensure accurate chemical use, but also improve safety, reduce waste and standardise outcomes across multiple sites,” he says.
Mitsch highlights the need for cooperation between industry bodies, manufacturers and facility managers when delivering effective training, particularly in light of innovations in dosing technology such as connected dispensing systems.
“We all have a role to play in training,” he says. “Training in dosing systems should address the full picture by combining product knowledge from manufacturers with operational context from the people using the products on the ground.”
Training should communicate the dangers of ignoring surface and soil combination when selecting products, alongside sharing the cost and operational benefits across the full asset life cycle that come from correct dosing and dilution.
“In critical settings, getting training wrong can be expensive and dwarf the original savings on product cost,” says Mitsch.
This article first appeared in the winter 2026 print edition of INCLEAN Magazine
