Every procurement team has suppliers they used to talk to regularly. At some point — after an RFP closed, a project paused, or a team member changed roles — the communication stopped. Not intentionally. Just gradually. The emails slowed, then stopped, and the relationship went dormant.
We analyzed supplier communication patterns across mid-market food, beverage, and supplement manufacturers to measure how many supplier relationships have gone silent — and what that silence might be costing.
The benchmark: 18–40% of supplier relationships go dormant within 90 days
We defined a “dormant” supplier relationship as one where the company has historical communication with the supplier but no email exchange in the last 90 days. Across our dataset, the results are consistent: a significant share of supplier relationships that were once active have gone silent.
| Company profile | Suppliers with history | Active (last 30 days) | Dormant (90+ days) | % Dormant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bakery manufacturer | 50 | 22 (44%) | 20 (40%) | 40% |
| Ingredient broker | 362 | 204 (56%) | 99 (27%) | 27% |
| Functional beverage | 32 | 17 (53%) | 6 (19%) | 19% |
| Pet food manufacturer | 40 | 25 (63%) | 7 (18%) | 18% |
| Snack brand | 66 | 49 (74%) | 2 (3%) | 3% |
The bakery manufacturer with 40% dormancy has 20 suppliers it was actively communicating with that it hasn’t contacted in three months. The ingredient broker, managing 362 supplier relationships, has nearly 100 that have gone silent.
These aren’t inactive suppliers — they’re neglected relationships
The distinction matters. An inactive supplier is one you’ve evaluated and intentionally moved on from. A dormant supplier is one that slipped through the cracks. Based on our data, dormant suppliers often share these characteristics:
They were active 3–6 months ago. These aren’t suppliers from years past. They were part of recent quoting, RFP, or sourcing conversations that simply didn’t get followed up on.
They have competitive pricing on file. Many dormant suppliers submitted quotes or participated in RFPs. Their pricing data exists — it’s just aging.
They represent items with single-source risk. When a backup supplier goes dormant, the company’s single-source exposure increases without anyone noticing.
The cost of dormancy
Stale pricing intelligence. If you haven’t communicated with a supplier in 90+ days, your pricing data for their items is at least 90 days old. In commodity-exposed categories like oils, proteins, sweeteners, and packaging materials, prices can shift significantly in a quarter.
Lost negotiation leverage. Active communication with multiple suppliers signals to each that they have competition. When a supplier stops hearing from you, they lose the urgency to sharpen their pricing. Re-engaging after months of silence puts you in a weaker negotiating position.
Invisible supply chain risk. Single-source risk is usually tracked at the item level: does this ingredient have more than one approved supplier? But if the backup supplier is dormant — no recent quotes, no active communication — the “backup” is theoretical, not operational. You’d need weeks of re-engagement before that supplier could actually fill a gap.
Missed product development opportunities. Suppliers frequently share information about new products, formulation capabilities, and capacity changes through regular communication. Dormant relationships miss these signals entirely.
What drives supplier relationships to go dormant
From the communication patterns in our dataset, we identified several common triggers:
Post-RFP drop-off. The most common pattern. A supplier participates in an RFP, doesn’t win the award, and communication stops. The supplier isn’t explicitly disqualified — they just don’t get a follow-up, and the thread dies.
Team member transitions. When a procurement team member who owned a supplier relationship leaves or changes roles, their supplier relationships often go dormant. The incoming team member inherits the portfolio but doesn’t have the relationship context or communication history to maintain engagement.
Seasonal sourcing cycles. Some dormancy is natural — seasonal ingredients have seasonal communication patterns. But without a system that distinguishes seasonal dormancy from relationship decay, all dormant suppliers look the same.
Volume concentration. As companies grow, they tend to consolidate volume with fewer suppliers. The smaller suppliers that once received active communication get deprioritized — not because they’re uncompetitive, but because the team’s bandwidth is consumed by the top 10–15 supplier relationships.
A quarterly re-engagement cadence could unlock hidden value
The simplest intervention is a quarterly review of dormant supplier relationships, prioritized by items at single-source risk, suppliers with recent competitive pricing, suppliers in categories with price volatility, and suppliers who lost a recent RFP by a narrow margin.
This isn’t about more emails. It’s about the right emails to the right suppliers at the right time — based on data, not memory.
Methodology
This analysis is based on supplier communication data from anonymized food, beverage, supplement, and pet food companies in the $50M–$500M revenue range, processed through the Waystation AI platform between 2022 and 2025. “Dormant” is defined as a supplier with at least one historical communication in the system but no inbound or outbound email in the last 90 days. “Active” is defined as a supplier with at least one communication in the last 30 days. Companies with fewer than six months of communication history were excluded from dormancy analysis. Only suppliers with at least one prior communication were included.
