In most companies, budget season is a predictable exercise in "incrementalism," taking last year’s numbers and adding a 5% bump. But what happens when leadership drops a bomb and says, "This year, we start from zero"?

In this episode of Corporate Finance Explained on FinPod, we explore Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB), a high-stakes financial framework in which every dollar must earn its right to exist. We unpack the mechanics of ZBB, the "Save to Grow" mindset, and the cautionary tales of companies that saved themselves into obsolescence.

ZBB vs. Traditional Budgeting: The Logic Flip

The fundamental difference between ZBB and the status quo is a shift in perspective:

• Traditional Budgeting: Asks, "How much more or less do we need than last year?" It is comfortable, based on precedent, and often hides "historical entitlement."
• Zero-Based Budgeting: Asks, "If we were building this function from scratch today, what would we actually fund?" It treats every expense as discretionary and requires a strategic justification for every line item.

The Mechanics: Decision Packages and Tiered Funding

The core engine of a successful ZBB program is the Decision Package. Rather than funding a department, leadership funds specific activities using a three-tiered approach:

• Minimum Level: The "keep the lights on" spend. The bare minimum required for operations and regulatory compliance. 
• Current Level: Business-as-usual spending. 
• Enhanced Level: Discretionary funding for innovation, R&D, and new customer acquisition.

This framework allows leadership to make strategic trade-offs. For example, funding a "minimum" level for administration to prioritize "enhanced" funding for revenue-driving marketing.

Case Studies: The Scalpel vs. The Axe

• Kraft Heinz (The Warning): Following a 2015 merger, the company applied a "ruthless" ZBB model. While margins shot up instantly, they cut too deeply into R&D and brand-building. The result was massive brand erosion and billions in write-downs. 
• Unilever (The Blueprint): In response to market pressure, Unilever adopted a "Save to Grow" ZBB model. They targeted specific SG&A categories but "ring-fenced" strategic areas like innovation. Savings were immediately reinvested in the business, proving that ZBB can be a tool for growth, not just austerity.

The Role of FP&A: From Scorekeeper to Architect

Without a strong Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) team, ZBB is just a spreadsheet exercise. In a ZBB environment, FP&A professionals must:

• Define Cost Drivers: Moving away from "last year's bill" to metrics like transaction volume or headcount.
• Assign Ownership: Ensuring the person who owns the activity is the one defending the spend.
• Differentiate Costs: Protecting "Change the Business" costs (future investments) from being swallowed by "Run the Business" costs (daily operations).