You know the scene from your own accounts: at the end of the month, supplier invoices appear that nobody in purchasing has ever heard of. The workshop manager ordered from the local dealer, the branch manager bought two pallet trucks on the company credit card, and three departments independently purchased the same consumables, each on individual terms. The phenomenon is called Maverick Buying, and it costs German mid-sized companies real money. According to HTWK Leipzig, the average maverick rate in Germany is 25.6 per cent of procurement volume. The Hackett Group puts the lost negotiated savings at up to 16 per cent. With warehouse equipment purchasing of 800,000 euros per year, that is a six-figure sum quietly disappearing from EBIT. This article shows you how to get the problem under control in a structured way, without patronising your workforce and without a two-year SAP Ariba implementation.
What is Maverick Buying?
Maverick Buying refers to any procurement that bypasses the official purchasing process or existing framework agreements. The term is not meant morally, deliberate sabotage is the rare exception. Rather, it describes a structural failure: employees bypass purchasing because they experience it as a brake, because they need supplies faster than the formal process allows, or because they simply do not know the contract landscape.
In practice, Maverick Buying occurs in three variants. Off-contract buying: a framework agreement exists, but the employee orders the same product from a different supplier, often at a higher price. Out-of-process buying: approval processes and ordering systems exist, but they are bypassed via telephone, e-mail or credit card. Shadow procurement: entire departments work with their own suppliers and terms without central purchasing being involved.
The triggers are rarely malice. A BME survey shows that only around a quarter of companies achieve an uncritical maverick rate below five per cent. In most cases it is a mixture of time pressure (a broken pallet truck is blocking goods-in), lack of knowledge (which framework agreement even applies?) and personal preferences. The key insight: Maverick Buying cannot be solved with bans, only with better processes and tools.
What Maverick Buying really costs
The figures are uncomfortably concrete. A recent survey by Wucato among purchasing managers found that more than half of the participants see a savings potential of up to 20 per cent of total costs if Maverick Buying were consistently eliminated. On average, the estimated savings potential is around 24 per cent of total procurement costs. This figure seems high at first, but it covers not only the direct additional costs per order, but also the process costs, the risks and the strategic disadvantages.
The direct price premium on maverick orders is, in our experience, between 5 and 30 per cent, depending on the product category. For consumables, 10 to 15 per cent is typical; for specialised forklift components or service contracts it can reach 30 per cent or more, because the spontaneous buyer does not obtain comparative quotes.
Then there are process costs. Studies on C-parts procurement in German mid-sized businesses put the process costs per manual order at 100 to 130 euros, with digitally integrated processes they fall to 60 to 70 euros. With 5,000 orders per year, that adds up to a difference of 250,000 euros. The Hackett Group quantified the share of lost negotiated savings due to maverick spend at 5 to 16 per cent, depending on the maturity of the procurement organisation.
Less visible but dangerous are the compliance risks: suppliers that have not been audited may violate the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act. CE conformity of pallet trucks or racking is not documented centrally. Tax auditors take issue with incoming invoices without a proper purchase order in the system. And ISO 20400, the international guidance standard for sustainable procurement, explicitly requires end-to-end governance of supplier selection and purchasing policy, which is simply impossible with a maverick rate of 25 per cent.
Typical maverick sources in warehouse equipment
If you want to know where your money is flowing away uncontrolled, you need to know the typical sources. In warehouse equipment procurement, we see four recurring patterns.
Spontaneous purchases of consumables
The stretch film is empty, shipping labels are running out, Euro containers are getting scarce: warehouse staff pick up the phone or order from the nearest web shop. Wucato has presented a clear finding on this: office supplies and consumables account for around 75 per cent of all maverick activity. In warehouse equipment, the pattern translates one-to-one to packaging material, adhesive tapes, markers, safety clothing and small components. These product groups often have low unit prices but high order frequency, and therefore massive leverage for consolidation.
Emergency purchases when equipment breaks down
When a forklift fails or a lift mast gives out, the rule at goods-in is: replace it, now. The purchasing process with its three-quote rule and approval workflow is regularly skipped in such moments. That is understandable, but it keeps a latent stream of extra costs alive that adds up. A forklift spare part that costs 380 euros from a framework agreement dealer quickly goes over the counter for 520 euros at the emergency supplier. With twelve emergencies a year, that already adds up to 1,700 euros, at a mid-sized logistics site with three to five emergencies per month, five-figure sums are the norm.
Branch managers with credit cards
In companies with multiple sites, the branch or site manager credit card is a typical maverick channel. It was introduced to provide liquidity for ad-hoc purchases, without clear spend policies, it becomes an informal procurement office. A site manager who moves 8,000 euros per month via credit card generates almost 100,000 euros of volume in twelve months that is not correctly classified in any spend analysis.
Workshop managers with an account at the local dealer
Workshops and maintenance departments often maintain long-standing relationships with local specialist dealers. If the workshop manager has his own ordering account with the dealer, the entire demand for hydraulic oil, filters and pallet truck spare parts bypasses central purchasing. In a spend analysis, this often only becomes apparent when incoming invoices are grouped by cost centre: figures of 40 to 60 different suppliers for a single workshop are not uncommon.
The countermeasures pyramid
Maverick Buying cannot be fought with a single tool. What works is a pyramid of measures that build on each other. Anyone who starts with level 4 (self-service) without having sorted out level 1 (visibility) gets lost in detail work. This sequence has proven itself in practice.
Level 1: Visibility, spend analysis and reporting
You can only manage what you can see. Before you put a procurement tool out to tender, you need a robust spend analysis: which product groups are purchased in what volume from which suppliers? How high is the share of orders without a purchase requisition in the system? A pragmatic method: export all incoming invoices from the last 24 months, classify them by product group (UNSPSC codes help) and reconcile against framework agreements. The gap is your maverick share.
Level 2: Supplier consolidation
With visibility comes the moment of surprise: most mid-sized companies have between 80 and 200 active suppliers in warehouse equipment, of which 15 to 25 typically account for 80 per cent of the volume. The long tail causes high process costs with minimal contribution to the purchasing result. Target: eliminate at least 50 per cent of suppliers in tail spend, without leaving demand unmet.
Level 3: Framework agreements with clear terms
Framework agreements are the backbone. They must meet three conditions to be effective. First: they must genuinely cover the relevant product groups, not just the most-used pallet truck, but also the spare parts, the accessories and the service. Second: the terms must be visible and comprehensible to users at the moment of need. A framework agreement that only the head of purchasing knows about has no effect. Third: you need an escalation mechanism for cases where the framework agreement does not fit, otherwise it gains a reputation for being "rigid" and gets bypassed.
Level 4: Self-service via eProcurement and punchout
Only at this stage does technology become a lever. eProcurement systems with punchout connections to your main suppliers make ordering under contract terms easier than ordering around them. Punchout means: your employee clicks on the supplier in the ERP or in the internal self-service portal, lands in a personalised web shop with stored terms and filtered assortment, fills the basket and hands it back to the company's own system. Approval, ordering, goods receipt and invoice matching run automatically. The Hackett Group finding here is unambiguous: 75 per cent of the procurement leaders surveyed cite missing self-service or guided-buying tools as the main cause of maverick spend.
Level 5: Approval workflows with value thresholds
At the top are workflows that do not treat every order the same. A consumables order of 80 euros does not need two-stage approval, but an automatic check against budget and framework agreement. An investment of 25,000 euros needs genuine multi-eye review. Three-tier models have proven effective: line manager (up to 5,000 euros), head of department (up to 25,000 euros), management board (above that).
Practical roadmap: the 90-day plan
Three months is a realistic timeframe to lay the foundations, not to transform your entire procurement. Here is a proven approach.
Weeks 1–2: Prepare spend data. Export all incoming invoices and purchase orders from the last 24 months. Classify by product group and supplier. Even an Excel pivot with supplier name, product group and annual volume delivers the first insights. Identify the top 10 maverick suppliers (measured by volume without a framework agreement).
Weeks 3–4: Stakeholder interviews. Talk to the people who trigger maverick orders today. Do not ask about blame, ask about reasons: why is the current process unattractive? These interviews are worth their weight in gold, without them, any technical solution misses the actual need.
Weeks 5–6: Supplier consolidation in two pilot product groups. Typically consumables and forklift spare parts. Negotiate consolidated framework agreements with two to three main suppliers, with clear price tiers and SLAs. Target: 80 per cent of volume with a maximum of three suppliers per product group.
Weeks 7–8: Define the ordering policy and thresholds. Create a concise written ordering policy (two pages maximum). Also define what is allowed without further approval, not just what is forbidden. A policy that only restricts will fail.
Weeks 9–10: Self-service ordering portal in the pilot area. This does not have to be a full P2P system, a hosted web shop portal with punchout to the main supplier is enough to start with. Measure adoption after two weeks.
Weeks 11–12: Reporting dashboard and rollout plan. A simple dashboard that reports the maverick rate per site and product group monthly. Without continuous reporting, the rate slips back. Define the rollout for the next 6 to 12 months.
Tools: What you really need
The temptation is great to start with tool selection. Do not do it. First the data, then the processes, then the tools. If you stick to this order, you avoid the classics, such as an SAP Ariba implementation that, after 18 months, still has not processed a single employee's order.
For mid-sized businesses, three tool categories have proven themselves.
ERP extensions. If you run SAP Business One, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central or Sage, first check what procurement functionality is already available. A well-configured ERP with purchase requisitions, approval workflow and supplier master data solves around 70 per cent of maverick problems, without additional licence costs.
For the remaining 30 per cent, P2P platforms such as Onventis, Wallmedien, Wucato or Mercateo come into play. They offer ready-to-go web shop connections, catalogue management and workflow engines. The Onventis DACH SME Procurement Barometer 2024 shows: 88.5 per cent of mid-market procurement leaders are open to digital technologies, what is usually missing is the energy to implement.
Spend analysis tools. For pure analysis, Power BI or Tableau with an ETL process from the ERP is often sufficient. Only when you need external data sources, supplier benchmarks and AI-supported anomaly detection do tools like Sievo, Spendkey or Cosinex pay off. For mid-sized companies below 50 million euros of purchasing volume, Power BI plus clean master data is the better starting point.
Common pitfalls during implementation
Most Maverick Buying initiatives fail not because of the technology, but because of the rollout. Four pitfalls appear again and again.
Workflows that are too rigid. If every order above 50 euros has to pass a two-person approval, you are sabotaging yourself. The workforce will bypass the system, and you end up with more Maverick Buying than before. Set thresholds that match the actual risk profile. For consumables below 200 euros, an automatic check against budget should be sufficient.
Lack of user acceptance. An eProcurement system that is slower than a phone call to the dealer will not be used. Invest in user experience: single sign-on, mobile usability, fast search, repeat orders in two clicks. Do not train just once, actively support the first weeks. The Hackett Group data shows: top procurement organisations train 100 per cent of their users online, poor performers only 33 per cent, and that is exactly where the maverick rates arise.
Poor supplier onboarding. If you switch to eProcurement, your main suppliers need punchout catalogues, EDI interfaces or at least structured product data. Many mid-market suppliers do not have this out of the box. Plan 4 to 8 weeks of onboarding per supplier, ideally with clear technical requirements from your system. Without clean onboarding, the self-service promise collapses.
No reporting, no leadership dialogue. Maverick Buying is a leadership culture issue. If the maverick rate per site does not appear regularly in management reporting, with an owner and a trend, the topic stays under the radar. Anchor the rate as a KPI in monthly controlling, right next to return on sales and working capital.
Frequently asked questions
What maverick rate is acceptable?
Top procurement organisations achieve values below 5 per cent. Realistic targets for mid-sized companies, depending on the industry, are 8 to 12 per cent. If you are at 20 per cent or more, that is a clear signal to act. Important: the rate should be measured separately by product group and site, a blanket figure hides the real hotspots.
How do we measure Maverick Buying objectively?
A proven metric is the quotient of "purchasing volume without a purchase order in the system" divided by "total purchasing volume". Data sources are accounts payable and the ERP ordering module. You can refine this with additional indicators: orders without a framework agreement, orders without workflow approval, orders by credit card. Ideally, calculate it monthly.
Is an eProcurement rollout worthwhile at just 200,000 euros of purchasing volume?
For dedicated P2P platforms, usually not yet. At this volume, a well-configured ERP module with web shop connections to two or three main suppliers is the more economical route. From around 1 million euros of warehouse equipment volume, punchout connections and external procurement tools pay off. From 5 million euros, dedicated spend analysis tools become worthwhile.
How do we handle emergencies without encouraging maverick behaviour?
Define a clear emergency process: a maintained pool of two to three pre-qualified emergency suppliers per product group, with agreed framework terms for express deliveries. Employees can order without approval but must submit follow-up documentation within 24 hours. This preserves both speed and control.
How do we involve the workshop manager who prefers local suppliers?
First: take seriously why he prefers the local dealer, the arguments are often legitimate, such as service speed or personal contact. Second: include the local dealer in the framework agreement, provided the terms are viable. Third: make the workshop manager a co-designer of the new process, not the recipient of a top-down instruction. Change imposed against the workshop does not work.
What role does ISO 20400 play?
ISO 20400 is an international guidance standard for sustainable procurement, not certifiable, but increasingly a reference for supply chain transparency and ESG reporting. For mid-sized companies, the standard is relevant because it requires end-to-end governance of supplier selection, contract design and procurement policy. With a high maverick rate, the standard cannot be implemented, in that respect, reducing Maverick Buying is a necessary step towards ISO 20400-compliant procurement.
Conclusion
Maverick Buying is not a moral problem of your workforce, but a structural problem of your processes. The average maverick rate in German mid-sized businesses of around 25 per cent is not a law of nature, with a methodical approach it can be halved and pushed below 10 per cent within two to three years. The lever is not more control, but better visibility, consolidated suppliers, transparent framework agreements and easy-to-use self-service tools. When the easiest ordering route is the contract-compliant one, the problem almost solves itself.
Start with visibility, not with software. Talk to the maverick buyers, not about them. Set thresholds that match the risk, not the mistrust. And measure the rate as a KPI that lands on the management board's table every month. Then, within 12 months, Maverick Buying becomes a managed procurement process, and a six-figure loss factor becomes a contribution to the EBIT margin.