This product has already been purchased.
- Mistaking reputation for integrity is a persistent governance blind spot.
- Risk can increase when procurement decisions are made under time pressure. Procurement should be a standing item on the board agenda, at least quarterly.
- The board’s role is not to distrust reputable suppliers by default, but to ensure reputation never substitutes for evidence.
Conflicts of interest, questionable suppliers, cyber vulnerabilities and ESG obligations make procurement a priority for the board.
Boards can sometimes conflate brand recognition with reduced risk, treating a familiar supplier name as a proxy for due diligence already done. Mistaking reputation for integrity is a persistent governance blind spot. A well-known name can inspire confidence long before it has actually earned trust, and that gap is where procurement failures can originate.
For directors, the distinction matters. Reputation is a perception built over time, often shaped by marketing, market presence and past performance in unrelated contexts. Integrity, by contrast, is demonstrated – verified through financial transparency, contractual accountability and a track record specific to the engagement at hand. Confusing the two allows recognised suppliers to bypass the scrutiny that governance frameworks are designed to enforce, simply because their name feels safe.
“Today’s key question is not whether the organisation is getting the lowest price, but whether its supply chain is reliable, resilient and financially sustainable,” says McGrathNicol Head of Advisory Matt Fehon AM GAICD.
Risk can increase when procurement decisions are made under time pressure, where a familiar vendor offers the path of least resistance and where “everyone uses them” substitutes for an actual risk assessment. The board’s role is not to distrust reputable suppliers by default, but to ensure reputation never substitutes for evidence.
“I see procurement as one of the most under-leveraged sources of value in most organisations, particularly in the NFP sector,” says Kirsten Smith GAICD, chartered governance professional and principal consultant of Governance in Focus.
“Strong supplier relationships improve quality and reliability,” she says. “Ethical procurement strengthens reputation and social licence. Consolidated purchasing frees up resources for mission-critical work. And, for community organisations, deliberately choosing local and values-aligned suppliers can directly support the people and places the organisation exists to serve.”
How to spot conflict of interest
Impartial decision making is the foundation of effective procurement.
“The uncomfortable truth about conflicts of interest is that the people who have them rarely think they do,” says Smith. “The director whose former firm is on the preferred supplier list. The CEO whose university friend runs the consulting practice. The committee chair who sits on the board of an entity that tenders for work.
“These people will tell you, quite sincerely, that it doesn’t influence their judgement. They may even be right. But that’s not the point. The point is that governance systems exist precisely because good intentions are not a reliable control.”
The board should look for evidence that procurement staff are actively identifying and disclosing potential conflicts of interest.
“A high number of disclosures can be more encouraging than none,” says Fehon. “This is indicative of a healthy culture where staff feel comfortable enough to recognise and report potential conflicts.”
He also recommends applying the “front page test” when assessing potential conflicts of interest.
“If the relationship was reported in the media, would the organisation be comfortable defending it to shareholders and regulators?” he asks.
Five ways to strengthen procurement governance
Strong procurement governance helps boards protect the value of the organisation, build resilience and reduce the risk of expensive failures, disputes and reputational damage.
1. Set clear procurement expectations with up-to-date policies with clear delegations of authority and approval thresholds.
2. Stay informed by requesting regular reporting on procurement activity, supplier performance and emerging risks.
3. Challenge management on procurement controls, including audits, supplier reviews and contract monitoring.
4. Encourage disclosure of conflicts of interest by embedding simple declaration practices into everyday operations.
5. Monitor third-party risks to ensure risks associated with suppliers and other external providers are identified and managed appropriately.
Procurement red flags every board should know
The board should feel confident that supply partners are consistently acting in an honest, ethical, transparent and compliant way.
“Reputation is not integrity,” says Smith. “A supplier can have a beautiful website, a long client list and a managing director who plays golf with your CEO – and still be a governance disaster waiting to happen.”
Boards must rely on clear reporting while paying particular attention to high-risk areas. Fehon points to these common red flags:
Direct awards without a competitive process
Emergency or last-minute procurements
Frequent use of procurement waivers or exceptions to standard processes
Long-standing loyalty used to justify using a supplier without due diligence
Contracts that have undergone multiple variations over time, suggesting the original procurement approach may no longer deliver value or appropriate oversight
Numerous invoices below approval thresholds from the same supplier, which may indicate invoice splitting or repeated exceptions.
“The board needs to challenge management with the right questions,” says Fehon. “I’d ask what internal audit reviews are conducted on procurement practices? Are independent procurement specialists engaged to perform periodic assessments? Are supplier audits undertaken, and are contracts regularly tested to ensure that the goods and services delivered meet both performance expectations and contractual obligations?”
These controls provide evidence that procurement risks are being monitored and managed effectively.
“Poor monitoring can lead to cost overruns, contract variations and even litigation, which can arise due to discrepancies in what was agreed and what was ultimately delivered,” says Fehon.
He suggests procurement should be a standing item on the board agenda, at least quarterly.
“In addition, management should provide a dashboard that gives directors visibility over procurement activity, supplier risks and any areas requiring attention.”
Six procurement risks every board should understand
Procurement risks are many and wide-ranging. Smith identifies those the board needs to keep in mind.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk. Obligations include sustainability targets, modern slavery requirements and broader ethical sourcing expectations.
Cyber risk. In many cases, cyber incidents originate through suppliers, contractors or other third parties, rather than direct attacks.
Strategic risk. This includes supplier concentration, sole-source arrangements and being dependent on critical vendors.
Financial risk. Such as supplier creditworthiness, financial distress and insolvency, and the impact of rising costs on future contracts and service delivery.
Operational risk. Including compliance with service-level agreement, delivery performance, service disruptions and contract performance outcomes.
Legal, regulatory and reputational risks. Are key suppliers subject to regulatory investigations, significant litigation, sanctions or adverse media coverage that could expose the organisation to financial, operational or reputational harm?
“In many organisations, procurement governance consists of a policy nobody reads, delegations nobody checks and a reporting line that reaches the board only when something has already gone wrong,” says Smith.
“Boards that do the job well have three things in common – a clear, current procurement policy; a delegation’s structure that defines when the board needs to see a decision; and a reporting rhythm that keeps material procurement activity visible. It’s not complicated, it’s just not common enough.”
Latest news
Already a member?
Login to view this content