Manufacturing’s Contracts Haven’t Kept Up With Its Problems

The last few years have been a stress test for anyone who manages supplier relationships or owns commercial agreements. Trade policy shifts mid-negotiation. Raw material costs move against fixed-price commitments already signed. New regulations land while old compliance workflows are still catching up. Smart machinery now ships with software subscriptions attached, creating contract types that weren’t in anyone’s playbook five years ago. And supply chains that snapped during the pandemic never fully regained their elasticity. It’s the reality for anyone working across the industrial economy — from food and beverage to automotive to semiconductors — and the organizations they supply and source from.

Each of these pressures is manageable in isolation. Together, they’ve created an environment where the pace of business obligation is outrunning the pace of business administration — and the gap shows up in the numbers. Manufacturers lose roughly 8.6% of annual spend to inefficient contract management. Across industries broadly, organizations forfeit an average of 11% of contract value after signature. That’s margin leaving through the back door of processes nobody has redesigned in years.

What the benchmark data actually tells us

The 2026 data across manufacturing sub-sectors from the recent 2026 Contracting Benchmark Report reveals less about contract complexity and more about organizational velocity — or the lack of it.

Industrial: slow where it counts most

Industrial contracts average 23 days to execute, with 34% requiring legal involvement. Sales agreements take 30 days. The issue isn’t just that deals are slow — deals are slowest at the exact moment they should be accelerating. When a competitor can move faster, a 30-day cycle is an invitation for a customer to reconsider. Without automated tracking, teams also struggle to verify whether machine repairs fall under warranty, leading to repeated unverified payments and rising field repair costs that eat directly into margin.

Agriculture: the hidden leverage problem

Agriculture has the lowest legal involvement rate in the report at just 12%, yet still averages 30 days to execute, the longest of any sector. Low legal involvement should produce faster cycles, but it hasn’t. Instead, teams appear to be trading negotiating power for supply security: 83% of agriculture procurement runs on third-party paper, a figure that surged 834% year-over-year. Signing on vendor terms to lock in supply is not only a contracting habit — it’s also a signal that the negotiation was already lost before it started. With a 30-day execution window, pivoting to backup suppliers when a primary source fails becomes nearly impossible.

Hardware and semiconductors: fast, but accumulating risk

Hardware teams execute in 10 days, which reflects the sector’s pace requirements. But 96% of procurement is on third-party paper, and general and admin contracts run at 71%. Moving quickly on someone else’s terms accumulates obligations, liabilities, and compliance requirements that manual systems can’t monitor at that volume. The speed is real. So is the risk building underneath it.

The pressure is real, and it’s landing in your contracts

For anyone managing supplier relationships or commercial terms right now, the forces reshaping the business aren’t abstract. They show up in specific agreements, at specific moments, in ways that are expensive if you’re not watching.

When tariffs shift, the financial exposure is already baked into whatever you’ve signed — the real question is how fast you can find out which agreements are affected and what your terms actually allow you to do about it. When a fixed-price agreement gets signed against a raw material index that updates every 12 weeks, the margin risk isn’t visible until the index moves. When a primary supplier has quality issues, SLA terms that seemed reasonable at signing can become the thing preventing you from sourcing elsewhere. When geopolitical tension threatens production for a global operation, teams that can immediately see where their agreements carry country-of-origin exposure are in a fundamentally different position than those who can’t.

The instinct in response to this kind of volatility is to tighten control — which in practice has meant routing more through legal review. Today, 62% of manufacturing contracts require legal involvement from end-to-end. The intention is rigor. The result is a bottleneck that delays production ramp-ups, slows supplier onboarding, and introduces the very instability it was meant to prevent.

Where value leaks out

This is where the pressure becomes concrete revenue loss:

• Warranty claims nobody tracks. Without automated monitoring, teams repeatedly pay for machine repairs that should be covered, because verifying the original agreement takes days nobody has.
• Auto-renewals that slip through. Underperforming suppliers get renewed not because anyone made that decision, but because nobody flagged the deadline. The cost is another full cycle with a vendor already causing problems.
• Volume discounts that expire unclaimed. Separate contracts with the same supplier, managed in silos, routinely miss the thresholds that would trigger discounts. The obligation existed. Nobody was watching it.
• Fixed-price contracts caught on the wrong side of a commodity move. When raw material indexes shift, margin exposure builds in real time. Manual processes find out when the invoice arrives.
• Shipments held at port. When proof of material origin or compliance can’t be quickly located, goods sit. Port delays with an inflexible delivery window then force expensive shipping alternatives nobody budgeted for.

The modernization investment that tends to get skipped

When organizations invest in modernization, contract management rarely leads the conversation. ERP upgrades, IoT integration, predictive maintenance — these get the budget and the attention. But contracts touch every dollar that moves through the operation, from pricing tiers and volume commitments on the commercial side to FOB terms, change orders, and liability caps in the supply chain. A contract signed under last quarter’s assumptions is quietly shaping this quarter’s outcomes.

AI contract management changes the operational math in concrete ways. Centralized repositories mean that when a new tariff lands, you can immediately see which supplier agreements are exposed rather than spending weeks searching across disconnected systems. Playbooks built from existing contracts define preferred terms and set negotiation guardrails, reducing the volume of agreements that need legal review without reducing the quality of what gets signed. Automated obligation tracking means the volume discount gets claimed, the underperforming supplier gets flagged before the renewal, and the warranty repair gets verified the same day rather than the same week.

The Hormel benchmark

Hormel Foods reduced its contracting cycle from 84 days to 21 by automating workflows across more than 50 contract types — including a complex Packers and Stockyard agreement that had previously existed as 7 versions with 13 addendums. That 75% reduction is what happens when contract management gets treated as operational infrastructure rather than administrative overhead.

The starting point is an honest look at where current processes are losing ground — whether that’s cycle times, visibility into obligations, or the ability to respond when something changes. The pressures reshaping the business aren’t waiting. Every day that gap stays open is costing you.

---

Ironclad is not a law firm, and this post does not constitute or contain legal advice. To evaluate the accuracy, sufficiency, or reliability of the ideas and guidance reflected here, or the applicability of these materials to your business, you should consult with a licensed attorney.