RAW-MATERIAL COST AND PRODUCTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN UGANDA; A CASE OF HOME CARE HERBAL BATHING SOAP ENTERPRISES WAKALIGA BRANCH

Authors: Kifanta Sunday, Lule Simon & Kakundwa Naomi  

ABSTRACT

The study focused on the relationship between raw material costs and productivity (in terms of production levels, market share, customer satisfaction, and employee count) of Home Care Herbal Soap Enterprises. The study’s particular aims were to determine the effect of transportation costs on productivity, to investigate the influence of packaging costs on production, and to investigate the impact of indirect taxes on productivity. The study followed a descriptive and cross-sectional research design. The researchers employed a cross-sectional design to measure variations between or among various responses from all departments. The study targeted a population of 105 employees. The researchers selected 100 informants from a total of 105 employees. Data were obtained utilizing questionnaires, an interview guide, and an observation checklist. The researchers employed Statistical Techniques for Data Analysis (SPSS) to investigate the relationship between raw material cost and productivity. The study concluded that there is a significant positive association between transportation costs and production, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.436 and p =.000. Since p > 0.01, the association was significant. The study concluded that the association between packaging costs and productivity was positive and significant, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.570 and p =.000, indicating an increase in extrinsic motivation. The researchers found a significant positive association (r = 0.650**, p = 0.000) between indirect tax and production. The researchers suggested that Home care herbal soap avoid spending too much money on transportation for raw materials, completed products, and personnel in order to boost productivity in terms of market share and output levels.

Keywords: Raw-Material Cost, Productivity, Manufacturing Firms.

REFERENCES

  • Børing, P. (2019). The relationship between firm productivity, firm size and CSR objectives for innovations. Eurasian Business Review, 9(3), 269-297.
  • Daily, Herman e and cob, Jonathan (2018). For the common good redirecting the economy towards community, the environment and sustainable future Boston beacon press
  • González-Benito, J., Reis da Rocha, D. and Queiruga, D., (2018). The environment as a determining factor of purchasing and supply strategy: An empirical analysis of Brazilian firms, International Journal of Production Economics, 124, p. 1-10.
  • Groover, M. P. (2020). Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials, processes, and systems. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Marshall, Alfred (2020). Principles of economics. New York. Macmillan Marx, Karl (1867 /1977) capital, Vol. New York: vintage books
  • Ricardo David (2021). The principles of political economy and taxation London everyman’s library Schumpeter. Joseph (2018). History of economic analysis New York oxford university press
  • Schandl, H., Fischer‐Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Eisenmenger, N., … & Fishman, T. (2018). Global material flows and resource productivity: forty years of evidence. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 827-838.