State of Spend 2027: Consumer Goods Procurement Benchmarks

For Consumer Goods procurement executives, 2027 planning involves category priorities, supplier strategy, commercial terms and the allocation of procurement resources. Peer benchmarks provide context for those decisions across production inputs, packaging and business services. Sievo’s State of Spend 2027: Consumer Goods reports:

• Direct spend, excluding Packaging: 98.3% median purchase-order coverage.
• Indirect spend: 31.8% median purchase-order coverage.
• Packaging: 79.8 days of median payment terms.

The research draws on USD 41.3 billion of analyzed spend, with KPI benchmarks covering Q3 2025–Q2 2026. The findings describe the participating companies during that period. The planning questions below are editorial interpretations, not research findings or forecasts.

Which benchmark differences are relevant to procurement strategy?

The report provides cohort medians against which companies can compare consistently calculated KPIs. A difference from the median does not, by itself, indicate better or worse performance.

Source: State of Spend 2027: Consumer Goods, p. 8. Period: Q3 2025–Q2 2026.

Spend per invoice and supplier are arithmetic averages calculated within each company. The figures above are medians of those company-level averages, not averages across companies.

Compared with Q3 2024–Q2 2025:

• Median PO coverage fell 3.3 percentage points.
• Median payment terms shortened by 8.3 days.

The figures describe changes in reported medians. They do not establish the causes or show that every participating company experienced the same movement.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Are company and peer figures based on the same reporting periods, category scope and KPI definitions?
• Which differences are material enough to affect category priorities, supplier strategy or procurement resource allocation?

What does PO coverage indicate about category governance?

PO coverage provides one indicator of how category spend flows through formal processes. It does not measure procurement’s involvement in sourcing decisions, contract quality or the effectiveness of category governance.

Sievo reports the following Consumer Goods medians:

• Professional Services: 15.2% PO coverage.
• Marketing: 84.7% PO coverage.

Source: p. 25; Q3 2025–Q2 2026.

The difference identifies distinct use of purchase orders across service categories. For procurement leaders, its significance depends on sourcing mandates, contract coverage and business ownership, alongside controls in the procure-to-pay process. The data does not establish whether procurement was involved before commercial commitments were made.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Where does procurement have visibility and influence before category commitments are made?
• Do category mandates, contract coverage and accountability explain the differences in PO coverage?

How can payment-term benchmarks inform procurement’s working-capital contribution?

Payment-term benchmarks provide a basis for assessing commercial terms within supplier negotiations. Sievo’s model estimates the working-capital difference associated with specified term changes; it does not identify which agreements can feasibly be renegotiated.

Sievo’s Indirect working-capital model contains:

• Reported modeled opportunity: USD 3.0 billion in theoretical working capital.
• Spend base: USD 28.0 billion, excluding Other Indirect.
• Calculation: each category’s 75th-percentile minus 25th-percentile payment-term gap, multiplied by analyzed category spend and divided by 365.

Source: p. 26; Q3 2025–Q2 2026.

The model applies to the analyzed category spend base. It does not measure cash already released by bottom-quartile companies or establish the feasibility of extending their terms.

The relationship between payment terms and working capital also depends on the wider commercial agreement. Contractual terms measure invoice receipt to due date; due-to-pay measures actual payment relative to that date.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Which categories and renewal cycles warrant a joint procurement–finance assessment of contractual terms?
• How would potential cash-flow benefits compare with pricing concessions, lost discounts and effects on strategic suppliers?

What does Marketing spend growth mean for category strategy?

The report records Marketing expenditure growth but does not isolate its drivers. Higher spending can reflect rates, volumes, service scope or spend mix; it does not establish the return on that expenditure.

A category management review can examine those drivers alongside business requirements. The reported growth rates alone do not support a conclusion that budgets should increase or decrease.

Questions for 2027 planning

• How much of the change reflects prices, activity levels, scope or spend mix?
• How should procurement and Marketing align agency strategy, commercial models and performance measures with business objectives?

How can packaging price trends inform sourcing and negotiation plans?

The selected packaging price indexes provide material-specific context for sourcing and negotiation plans. They describe historical transaction-price changes rather than terms available to every procurement organization.

Between July 2024 and July 2026, Sievo’s price indexes changed by:

• Plastic and Foam Packaging: +8.1 index points.
• Boxes & Cartons: +1.2 index points.

Source: p. 20; July 2024 = 100.

A company’s price movement may differ because of specifications, geography, contracted volumes or contractual conditions. The indexes alone do not establish whether a particular supplier’s price is competitive.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Are the company’s materials, specifications and measurement periods comparable with the index?
• Which contract renewals, specification reviews or sourcing events could address an evidenced price difference?

How should supplier concentration inform supply-base strategy?

Supplier concentration describes how spend is distributed. It does not establish whether consolidation or diversification would improve commercial or operational outcomes.

Sievo reports these median shares of subcategory spend allocated to the top 10 suppliers:

• Tubes: 99.8%.
• Boxes & Cartons: 92.4%.

Source: p. 19; Q3 2025–Q2 2026.

These subcategory figures do not describe total Packaging concentration. Concentration alone cannot establish either efficiency or resilience.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Where does the category strategy depend on a limited set of suppliers, and what qualified alternatives exist?
• How would consolidation or diversification affect negotiating position, supplier capability and continuity?

How comparable are procurement benchmarks across industries?

Cross-industry figures provide a broader reference, but their relevance depends on category scope and company characteristics. Industry-level differences do not establish which practices produced the results.

For example, the Consumer Goods Professional Services median PO coverage is 15.2%, 25.5 percentage points below the cross-industry median in Sievo's report (p. 25).

This is a cross-sectional difference between medians, not a change over time. It does not establish that the cross-industry median is an appropriate target for every Consumer Goods company.

Comparisons also depend on a consistent spend taxonomy. Categories with similar names may contain different sourcing requirements across sectors.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Are category definitions, geography, scale, periods and operating models sufficiently comparable?
• Is there evidence explaining the difference beyond the benchmark itself?

What evidence should underpin procurement's 2027 commitments?

Company-level evidence is needed to translate a peer comparison into a target. A percentile position alone does not establish an achievable improvement, its cost or its timing.

Sievo describes Community Data as providing comparisons by category, country and supplier. Such comparisons still require assessment against company-specific agreements and operational constraints.

Questions for 2027 planning

• Which proposed commitments have a validated baseline, category owner, sourcing plan and delivery timetable?
• How will procurement and finance agree the treatment of savings, cost avoidance, working capital and governance outcomes?

Methodology and scope

• Source: purchase orders, invoices and supplier transactions shared with explicit, opt-in contractual consent; cleansed, anonymized, validated and aggregated.
• Cohort: Consumer Goods manufacturers and brand owners, typically generating more than USD 1 billion in revenue. The report does not disclose the number of companies.
• Coverage: beauty & personal care, consumer health & wellness, apparel, footwear & luxury goods, and household durables & tools.
• Exclusions: Food & Beverage is analyzed separately; Contract Manufacturing & Finished Goods and inter-company transactions are excluded.
• Statistics: medians are 50th percentiles. For PO coverage and payment terms, “Top” and “Bottom” represent the 75th and 25th percentiles.
• Windows: KPIs cover Q3 2025–Q2 2026; price indexes span July 2024–July 2026; longer-term spending analysis covers Q1 2023–Q2 2026.

Frequently asked questions

Is the top quartile an appropriate target for every company?

No. Quartile positions describe the observed peer cohort. Their suitability as targets depends on operating model, supplier relationships, and implementation capacity. The report’s ranking of later due-to-pay as “Top” is not a recommendation to pay late.

Does spend growth indicate inflation?

No. Spending can change because of volumes, service scope, spend mix, or prices. Comparable rates and specifications are needed to isolate supplier price movements.

Is the working-capital estimate guaranteed?

No. It is a theoretical model based on category-level payment-term gaps. Company-specific spend, existing agreements and commercial trade-offs determine whether a practical opportunity exists.

Should I also look at cross-industry benchmarks?

Cross-industry benchmarks provide additional context rather than an inherently better reference. The most relevant comparison depends on category scope and operating model. 

Access the industry reports

The Consumer Goods industry report is available to download from this page. It includes:

• Detailed category-level median and quartile benchmarks.
• Payment-term comparisons and modeled working-capital opportunities.
• Supplier concentration, packaging prices and spending trends.

The State of Spend 2027 page also provides downloadable reports for nine additional industries, allowing readers to examine other industry cohorts alongside Consumer Goods.