Short answer: Barley, energy, and aluminum together represent a material share of a brewery’s COGS — and all three are driven by forces outside the brewery’s control. Scenario planning does not eliminate that risk, but it replaces reactive scrambling with pre-committed decision rules, which is a better use of management attention and a more defensible position with investors and lenders.
Why Input Cost Surprises Feel Worse Than They Are
When malt prices spike or the energy bill jumps 30% quarter-over-quarter, the instinct is to treat it as an emergency. In most cases it is not an emergency — it is a foreseeable range outcome that was simply never explicitly planned for. The cost of the surprise is not just financial; it is the management time consumed by a reactive response that could have been scripted months earlier.
Scenario planning converts that reactive cost into a proactive investment. By building explicit models of what happens to brewery economics under adverse, base, and favorable input cost assumptions, the finance team can prepare decision triggers in advance: at what malt price does the pricing strategy need to be revisited? At what energy cost does the investment case for a heat-recovery system change? Those answers are much easier to develop calmly, before the event, than under pressure.
The Three Input Cost Drivers and Their Mechanics
Malt and barley — the largest raw material line for most breweries. Barley is an agricultural commodity subject to harvest variation, regional growing conditions, and currency effects for imported malt varieties. Breweries that have not locked malt contracts by late summer are typically buying into a market where price visibility for the following year is limited. Scenario planning should model at least a base and a 20–25% adverse case on malt cost, translated into COGS/hL impact.
Energy — natural gas for brewing and steam generation, electricity for refrigeration and compressed air. Energy is often the second-largest input cost for breweries with on-site fermentation and cold storage. The cost is partly controllable through efficiency investment (heat recovery, LED lighting, variable-speed drives) but the commodity price component is not. NA beer operations are particularly exposed because dealcoholization is energy-intensive — a 30% energy price increase hits NA COGS/hL harder than standard beer COGS/hL on a proportional basis.
Aluminum — relevant for any brewery with significant can volume, which now describes most craft operations. Aluminum prices are tied to global industrial demand, energy costs (aluminum smelting is energy-intensive), and trade policy. Can prices lag aluminum spot by the length of supply contracts, so a spike in aluminum may not hit the brewery’s income statement for six to twelve months — but it will eventually, and the lag period is when scenario planning should be shaping pricing and hedging decisions.
Building the Scenario Model
A practical input cost scenario model has three components:
Sensitivity table — for each major input, what is the COGS/hL impact of a 10%, 20%, and 30% price increase? This is a simple calculation once the cost driver tree from cost of goods per hectoliter is in place. A sensitivity table gives the finance team and the executive team a common reference point.
Scenario definitions — three named scenarios with specific assumptions for each input. Base, stress, and opportunity. The stress case should be uncomfortable but plausible — not a catastrophic tail event — because the goal is to design a response, not to generate alarm. For example: malt +20% (a meaningful but historically observed drought impact), energy +30% (consistent with recent market volatility), aluminum +15% (within recent annual ranges).
Decision trigger map — for each scenario, what are the pre-committed responses? Price increase thresholds, hedging actions (if the brewery has the volume to access futures or swaps), SKU rationalization decisions, and capex deferrals. The triggers should be specific enough to act on without another decision meeting.
Connecting Scenarios to the Rolling Forecast
Scenario planning is most valuable when it is integrated into the driver-based forecasting cadence described in driver-based forecasting for breweries. The base scenario should be the central case in the rolling forecast; the stress scenario should be the downside case presented to the board. When actual input prices start tracking toward the stress scenario, the decision trigger map provides a pre-approved playbook.
The Honest Limit
Scenario planning does not forecast which scenario will occur. It structures the response to a range of outcomes. Breweries that treat the base case as the forecast and the stress case as the fire drill tend to get the most value from the exercise. Breweries that treat the stress case as the budget tend to under-invest in growth opportunities. The discipline is in holding both cases simultaneously and knowing which set of decisions each one requires.
Part of the Financial Planning & Analytics track — browse all.
Frequently asked questions
What are the three biggest commodity cost risks for a brewery? Malt (derived from barley), energy (natural gas and electricity for brewing and refrigeration), and aluminum (for cans) are consistently the largest variable input cost exposures for most breweries. Each has a different price driver — agricultural supply for barley, energy markets for utilities, and global industrial demand for aluminum — which means they do not always move together, making diversified hedging and scenario planning important.
How should a brewery structure input cost scenarios? A practical three-scenario structure uses a base case (current contracted or spot prices held flat), a stress case (a defined adverse move in each key input, e.g., malt +20%, energy +30%, aluminum +15%), and an opportunity case (favorable moves that could expand margin). Each scenario should translate directly into an impact on COGS per hL and gross margin to make the stakes concrete.
Does scenario planning for input costs apply to non-alcoholic beer differently? Yes. NA beer’s cost structure is more energy-intensive due to the dealcoholization process, which makes the energy cost scenario line more sensitive than for standard beer. Additionally, if the NA line runs at lower throughput than the main brewery, fixed energy costs are spread over fewer hL, amplifying the per-unit impact of an energy price spike.