In this case, a leading company in the sustainable packaging sector was facing an individual labor dispute regarding the performance of its Commercial Director, in a context in which the market was favorable and the product aligned with the demand driven by sustainability regulations. Despite this, the organization had accumulated a history of insufficient results and a commercial execution that did not correspond to what was required of a key position.
martinsdelima prepared an expert report aimed at supporting the business decision with objective evidence, avoiding subjective or generic assessments. The work accredited a consistent pattern of weaknesses in commercial execution: absence of measures to rebalance the gross margin and lack of an efficient commercial strategy in a scenario of consecutive losses, in addition to a performance evaluated in different exercises as “below expectations”.
One of the differentiating elements of the report was the digital traceability of performance through internal sources. Analyzing the records of the corporate CRM, a practical absence of use of the tool by the manager was verified: of in several years, only a minimum percentage corresponded to his user, a particularly relevant fact for a commercial management role. In addition, it was documented that, despite the express request of the General Management, a commercial plan was not developed, leaving the company without a defined strategy for months.
To reinforce the robustness of the analysis (and make it especially defensible), the report did not limit itself to describing facts, but incorporated an economic quantification of the impact with a conservative methodology. EBITDA was used as an indicator, as it reflects income less operating costs and avoids distortions due to interest, depreciation, or taxes. In Method 1, the deviation of the actual EBITDA from the budget approved by the Board was calculated, limiting the period by criteria of temporal attribution, being able to calculate a specific damage.
As a second layer of consistency, Method 2 estimated the damage by comparing the actual EBITDA with that which would have been obtained under a minimally reasonable and diversified execution, being able to calculate an aggregate damage for a period of several years. This double approach allowed the case to be sustained with two convergent quantitative tests, reducing dependence on a single hypothesis and increasing expert credibility.
The result was a report that turned an individual labor debate into a clear, verifiable, and defensible technical account, uniting performance evaluations, objective evidence of activity (CRM), documented internal decisions (commercial plan requested and not delivered), and robust economic quantification. In practice, this work decisively strengthens the client’s position in negotiation and procedure, by supporting the measure with methodology and tests that are difficult to refute.