Controversies in corporate procurement in 2025

In this post, we have selected several controversial topics to reflect on:

🧨 Corruption investigation in NATO Investigators are examining the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) over suspicions of corruption and money laundering related to the procurement of ammunition and drones. The investigation is taking place in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This revelation shatters the myth of clean and corruption-proof procurement in highly regulated sectors and organizations with strong processes and numerous control mechanisms. The question arises: can corruption in procurement ever truly be eradicated, or do we simply have to accept it?

🧨 Controversial “defence-as-a-service” model Tiberius Aerospace introduced the concept of open-source military production (e.g. 155 mm rockets), which enables decentralized manufacturing and competition among multiple suppliers. While the model is attractive in terms of competition and rapid capacity scaling, critics warn of serious risks concerning quality control and supply chain security. Is servitization — where products are increasingly offered as a service — the right trend in corporate procurement?

🧨 “Unbearable” growth of security and cybersecurity requirements in supply chains Due to frequent cyberattacks that have paralyzed not only individual manufacturers but entire supply chains, regulatory requirements, administration, and costs for securing supply chains (e.g. NIS2, DORA) are constantly increasing. For some companies, these requirements are becoming “unbearable,” and they argue that excessive regulation may paradoxically weaken security. As the saying goes: “When you try to control everything, you control nothing. Even if you try to create an impermeable system, water will always find a way through.”

🧨 Resilience vs. efficiency Global tensions and turbulent market conditions have moved the resilience of supply chains to the top of corporate priorities. The problem is that resilience does not come for free: diversification of sources, regional approaches such as nearshoring or multisourcing, building safety stocks, investments in risk minimization. Put bluntly, resilience costs a lot of money and essentially goes against the traditional procurement paradigm we might call “cheap and global,” which in practice manifests as long and complex supply chains, lean processes without reserves, minimal inventories, tight material flows, cost and specification optimization, and concentration on key partners regardless of geographic location and risk.

⁉️ How will companies resolve this dilemma in practice? Is there a risk that resilience will only be talked about, but no one will actually put money on the table to implement it — and everything will continue as usual?