Evolving priorities: the changing face of purchasing decisions
Over the last decade business procurement has evolved significantly. Previously focused on achieving the best outcome in terms of performance and cost, procurement is now an increasingly strategic corporate function, with any new purchase needing to aid business performance and meet increasingly stringent compliance, sustainability and governance targets. Recent developments in AI and data processing are accelerating this evolution.
One estimate suggests that the average business-to-business procurement committee comprises up to 13 members – representing departments such as IT, finance, sales, procurement, legal, product, operations, engineering, and C-suite, each with different priorities and constraints. As a result, the role of Chief Procurement Officers (CPOs) is increasingly about managing such teams rather than approving suppliers or signing off investment decisions. Put simply, purchasing departments are managing increased responsibilities, often with the same historic budget.
This means that for equipment suppliers such as HRS Heat Exchangers, simply providing the best technical solution at a competitive price is no longer sufficient. We need to understand the numerous – and sometimes competing – requirements of the different business functions which influence the final purchase.
How purchasing is changing
According to a survey of CPOs in 2018 by Deloitte, the top three priorities were reducing costs, new product or market development, and managing risks. By 2023, the priorities had shifted to driving operational efficiency, enhancing Environmental, Social & Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility (ESG/CSR), and digital transformation. Significantly, the last two priorities have emerged in just five years. Sustainability has now moved from a peripheral consideration to become a core element of procurement strategy, influencing every stage of the value chain. These changes place new expectations on suppliers.
The benefits of collaboration
One trend is that procurement has become increasingly collaborative, particularly where clients and suppliers have established relationships. Rather than being solely focused on cost, many companies are looking to co-create sustainability roadmaps with both material and equipment suppliers. The benefits of such an approach include reducing Scope 3 emissions, enhancing energy efficiency, improving traceability, and exploring new processing solutions.
Talking to the right people
With so many factors to consider, communication is more important than ever. Not just in terms of having an open and timely dialogue but also ensuring that the right people at both the client and supplier side are talking to each other. For example, a heat exchanger engineer may not be the best person to answer queries from the client’s CSR manager; equally, the customer’s finance team are likely to be more interested in payment terms than technical or environmental certification.
Therefore, one of the earliest considerations during the procurement process is to speak to potential suppliers and ensure that they not only fully understand all your business requirements, but that they also have the resources to discuss them and provide any necessary supporting evidence or information.
The rise of AI
A 2026 survey by Icertis, shows just how rapidly companies are adopting AI tools into their purchasing behaviour. It found that 44% of organisations are now using AI for contracting workflows, with shortlisting, contract review, and summarisation among the most cited examples. Looking to the future, 53% of executives said they expected AI agents to autonomously negotiate customer and supplier deals within the next 12 months. At the same time 55% cited data output quality as a significant concern, while 44% lacked sufficient trust in AI’s autonomous capabilities.
It is easy to see the attraction of simplification through the adoption of automatic systems and AI assessments. However, the complexity of production and waste treatment equipment and systems, and the potential lack of oversight, make this an extremely risky approach.
Particularly in complex situations – and those where multiple oversight and sign-off is required (for example in food production, pharmaceuticals or for environmental protection) – there is a risk that an AI-driven box-ticking exercise can at best undermine operational efficiency, and at worst expose companies to unacceptable risks.