One word for two disciplines
In English there are two words: purchasing and procurement. One is about the transaction, the other about the whole process before and after it.
In Dutch we use just one word: inkoop. When someone says “inkoop”, in one organisation they mean the department that processes orders, and in another the function that decides which suppliers the company will work with in the period ahead.
That is probably also why many Dutch organisations have started using the English word “procurement”. Not to be fashionable, but to make clear that it is about the tactical and strategic side of working with suppliers.
Purchasing: the transaction
On the one hand, purchasing is the transaction. There is a need, there is a budget, and there may or may not already be a contract with one or more suppliers. If there is no contract yet, there are parties who can supply. Quotes are requested and compared, a supplier is selected and the order is placed. Work that needs to be done carefully, and some of it is already automated.
The core question in purchasing is: how do we get this in, and at what price?
Procurement: the discipline
Procurement as a discipline starts much earlier, with a different question: should we be buying this at all, and if so, in what form, and to what specification?
It is about the specification before it is fixed. About knowing the market before you approach it. About the dependency you take on with a supplier who may soon be the only one able to supply this part. About the type of contract that decides who carries the risk when raw material prices rise. And about what happens after the contract is signed.
The core questions in this kind of procurement are: which choice is best for our organisation, and how do we manage the relationship with the contracted supplier?
The difference is in the timing
The real difference between the two is not just a matter of skill. It is also about the moment you get involved.
Transactional purchasing is about a one-off transaction. In the other kind of procurement you are ideally involved right at the start of the project or selection process.
Most of the costs, risks and dependencies are locked in the moment the specification is set and a preferred supplier is in the picture.
Bringing procurement in only after the choice has been made is like hiring a negotiator for a match that has already been played.
Late to the table
All too often it goes like this: a department has a need, starts exploring on its own, gets talking to a supplier and sees a convincing demo. A schedule appears, and something is already promised internally. Only then does procurement come into the picture, with the question of whether the contract can “just be sorted”.
By then there is little left to sort. The specification is fixed, and the supplier knows it is the preferred choice. Alternatives are no longer in view. The negotiating position is gone before procurement has asked its first question.
And then procurement gets called the bottleneck
What happens next will be familiar to every buyer. Procurement asks the questions that should have been asked earlier. Who carries the risk if the implementation overruns? Can you give us the support we need throughout the whole life cycle of the project or product? Why are there no alternatives on the table any more? What do the supplier’s general terms and conditions actually say?
They are exactly the right questions. But because they come late, they feel like obstacles. And so procurement gets labelled the bottleneck, while the delay was built in the moment procurement was not involved.
What the misunderstanding costs
The bill is not visible straight away; it is spread over years.
- A higher price, because there was never any real competition.
- A contract based on the supplier’s quote, with too much of the risk on your side of the table.
- Dependence on a single supplier, which only becomes visible when you want to switch.
- A specification that asks for more than is needed.
None of these costs shows up in a report at the moment of signing. They come later, and they are rarely traced back to the moment procurement joined too late.
Why the savings stay small
It also explains why procurement in such cases “only” manages to save a few percent.
If procurement only joins at the end of the process, all it can do is negotiate on a choice that has already been made. That yields a few percent at most, and there is no more to be had.
As we said, the big gains lie in the choices made beforehand: the specification, the market approach, the type of contract. Before procurement was at the table.
Small savings are often a sign that the procurement department was brought in too late.
Procurement’s position is shifting
There is good news: the picture is changing, and faster and faster.
The international Global State of Procurement & Supply 2026 survey by CIPS, the UK professional body for procurement and supply, shows that the share of procurement leaders with a direct line to senior management rose from 15 percent in 2025 to 33 percent in 2026. One in three. That is a substantial shift in a single year.
That shift did not come out of nowhere. The disruptions of recent years, such as shortages, price shocks and new European regulation, have shown boards that choosing a supplier is not an administrative matter but a strategic one.
How do the frontrunners do it?
The organisations that have got this right consistently do a few things differently.
They involve procurement at the earliest stage and agree thresholds: above a certain amount, or at a certain level of dependency, procurement is at the table before anyone talks to a supplier. They let procurement explore the market before the specification is written. And they judge procurement on more than savings: on security of supply, on risk management, on the quality of contracts.
That sounds like more work for procurement. In reality it is less, because far less has to be fixed afterwards.
“Prevention is better than cure.”
Three signs your organisation still has some homework to do
- Procurement first hears about a project when a contract needs signing. Then you are an ordering department, whatever the function is called.
- Procurement is judged on savings alone. Then you are measuring exactly the part of the work that delivers the least.
- The job ad for a buyer is mostly about quotes and orders. Then you are recruiting for the profession as it was, not as it needs to be.
Conclusion
In Dutch, “inkopen” and “inkoop” look like one and the same thing, but they are two different functions. The first is about the transaction, the second about the choice. As long as an organisation treats procurement as purchasing, it arrives at the table too late, delivers little and gets blamed for delays it did not cause.
You don’t make that difference with a new job title. You make it with the moment procurement comes to the table.
