This „Einblick” examines the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and highlights the risks of globalized supply chains optimized for low prices, demonstrating that geopolitical stability is not a reliable basis for business decisions. Companies that have aligned their procurement with sustainability, regional suppliers, and long-term partnerships are proving more resilient in the current crisis. Sustainability in procurement is not a luxury, but a crucial resilience factor that stabilizes margins, delivery times, and capacities. Strategic supplier relationships and the consistent use of renewable energies are particularly relevant, making companies structurally less vulnerable to energy price shocks. The key finding: Resilience is the new cost management and determines competitiveness in times of crisis.

Since February 28, 2026, the Strait of Hormuz has been largely blocked – that 50-kilometer-wide strait between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, through which around 20 million barrels of oil flow daily, roughly 20 percent of the world’s total maritime oil transport. What initially seemed like a distant geopolitical earthquake has long since arrived in the offices and factories of Central European companies.

If this one artery fails, it’s not just the energy supply that collapses. A model of thinking collapses: the model of limitless, cheap, globalized procurement, which for decades was considered sound business practice, and which is now, for the third time in just a few years, being exposed for what it truly is – a gamble on geopolitical stability that no one can guarantee.

Anyone who still claims that sustainability in purchasing is a luxury for good times or a cost driver that one must afford has not learned the lesson.

I. The crack in the system… why the crisis is not an accident

The idea of optimizing purchasing for the lowest possible price has a long and seemingly successful history. Global supply chains were streamlined for efficiency, inventory buffers were reduced, and stock levels minimized. Just-in-time became the creed of entire industries. The fact that this system relied on geopolitical stability, stable energy prices, and uninterrupted transport routes was taken for granted – not considered a calculated risk.

The past few years have systematically proven the opposite. The pandemic shattered certainty. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine shattered it again. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz shakes it a third time – and this time more deeply, more structurally, with a clarity that brooks no excuses. While in 2020 the pandemic shock still served as an explanation and in 2022 political surprise still functioned as an excuse, the economy now faces a simple truth: those who don’t know their supply chain, who haven’t built up alternatives, who have only considered supplier relationships transactionally, are vulnerable – precisely at the moment when strength is needed.

Companies that have consistently aligned their procurement with sustainability in recent years are currently experiencing something remarkable: they are suffering less. Not because sustainability is a shield against geopolitics—it isn’t, and that would be a naive claim. But because sustainable procurement is structurally different. Regional suppliers, diversified sources of supply, energy- and resource-efficient production processes, long-term partnerships instead of short-term spot-market opportunism—these are not ESG romanticism, an image campaign, or a concession to societal pressure. These are tangible resilience factors that are now reflected in the stability of margins, delivery times, and capacities.

The dimension of supplier relationships is particularly revealing. For years, purchasing was treated as an operational function: driving down prices, negotiating contracts, and selecting suppliers based on the lowest bid. The strategic depth of this function was systematically underestimated, its role reduced to procurement volume, and its impact on the company’s competitiveness misjudged. This is now taking its toll in ways that are immediately apparent in the profit and loss statement. Those who have treated their suppliers solely as cost centres are left to fend for themselves in a crisis. Those who have invested for years in joint product development, open communication, fair terms, and genuine partnership will receive preferential treatment from the same suppliers—even when capacity is scarce, even when alternative buyers offer higher prices. This isn’t a superficial argument. This is realpolitik in purchasing, and it pays off precisely when it matters most.

Added to this is the question of energy dependency. Companies that have consistently relied on renewable energy sources in their supply chain in recent years, on energy-efficient production partners, and on intermediate products with a lower fossil fuel content are structurally less exposed to the current oil price shock. Every percentage point of renewable energy in the supply chain is not just an ecological statement at this moment—it’s an economic buffer. And anyone who still doubts this should compare the current supplier calculations of their fossil fuel-dependent partners with those of their sustainably positioned partners.

Resilience is the new cost management.

This formula sounds simple, but its implications are profound. It means that the lowest purchase price today is not necessarily the lowest overall price when you factor in supply risk, price volatility, relationship capital, and regulatory compliance. It means that sustainability doesn’t create additional costs but rather exposes hidden costs and makes them avoidable. And it means that companies that understand this equation possess a real and lasting competitive advantage—not despite their sustainability strategy, but because of it.

II. The path to a resilient supply chain

Knowing what you don’t know – strangely enough, this is the first and most important step towards a resilient supply chain. Most companies know their direct suppliers. They often also know their most important sub-suppliers. But beyond these first and second levels, the picture suddenly becomes blurred. It is precisely these blind spots that, in crises like the current one, transform into concrete supply disruptions, price spikes, and delivery delays.

Supply chain transparency is therefore not an end, nor merely a regulatory obligation. It is the foundation of any sound procurement strategy. Those who know where geopolitical concentration risks lie in their supply chain—a concentration on specific regions, raw materials, or transport corridors—can diversify these risks before a crisis occurs. Those who don’t know, react. But reacting is costly: in terms of time, capital, and market position.

The Supply Chain Due Diligence Act and the European CSRD Directive compel companies to address this transparency, and some business leaders have previously perceived these obligations as a bureaucratic burden. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates with absolute clarity: this obligation is a gift in the form of legislation. It forces companies to do precisely what benefits them from a business perspective.

Transparency alone, however, is not a program. It creates a data foundation; the real work begins afterward. Sustainability without measurability remains a declaration of intent, and declarations of intent are of no help in a crisis. What counts are concrete performance indicators. They are early warning systems. A company that systematically increases its share of regional suppliers and uses this share as a strategic key performance indicator automatically and structurally reduces its dependence on unstable trade routes—even if it doesn’t consciously consider this crisis preparedness in every single case. The effect is still achieved.

A third key element on the path to a resilient supply chain is the systematic strengthening of regional supplier relationships. The fact that Europe is currently experiencing a renaissance of nearshoring is neither a coincidence nor a passing fad. It is the logical consequence of a risk assessment that more companies are – consciously or unconsciously – adopting. Regional in this context does not mean provincialism. It means predictable transport routes that do not run through a single geopolitically unstable strait. It means shorter response times in the event of disruptions. It means a common regulatory framework that reduces compliance efforts and simplifies supplier audits. And it generally means a greater willingness on both sides to engage in genuine partnership – because proximity builds trust, and trust ensures delivery capability in times of crisis.

The message is clear: Building regional supplier structures is not a disadvantage in global competition. It is an investment in planning security that pays off at the latest when a 50-kilometer strait determines delivery capability.

III. Sustainability as a competitive advantage for customers, investors and regulators

There is an argument for sustainable procurement that is often forgotten in times of crisis because attention is focused on immediate supply shortages. However, this argument is at least as important in the medium and long term as the question of resilience: the competitive position that sustainably oriented companies occupy in the market, in the financing environment, and in the regulatory space.

Let’s start with the customers. In the B2B sector, a structural shift has taken place in recent years that many companies still underestimate. Large buyers – automotive manufacturers, mechanical engineering groups, consumer goods producers – are increasingly and systematically inquiring about the sustainability performance of their suppliers. Not out of idealism or as a PR stunt, but because they themselves are subject to reporting obligations and because their own investors, regulators, and end customers demand precisely this. Suppliers who cannot present reliable sustainability data in this environment will lose tenders – not tomorrow, but the day after, and in many sectors, already today. Sustainable procurement is therefore no longer optional. It is increasingly a prerequisite for market competitiveness.

The financing perspective significantly reinforces this picture. Investors and financial institutions are increasingly pricing sustainability risks explicitly. ESG ratings are factored into lending decisions, influencing access to green bonds and sustainable financing instruments, and determining the conditions under which equity capital can be raised. Companies with a poor sustainability profile pay risk premiums—on capital they would urgently need during a growth phase or in a crisis. Companies with a strong profile gain easier and cheaper access. This disparity is already measurable and will increase further in the coming years due to regulatory requirements for financial institutions. Sustainable finance is not a trend; it is the new financing reality.

And finally: regulation. The direction in which European and national legislation is moving is clear and without alternative. The Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, the CSRD, the EU Taxonomy Regulation, the planned Green Claims Directive – all these instruments aim in the same direction: more transparency, more responsibility, more obligations along the entire value chain. Companies that act voluntarily today and align their structures accordingly are not doing so for altruistic reasons. They are securing an implementation advantage that will translate into a real competitive advantage in two to three years when those lagging behind must react under compliance pressure – with significantly greater effort, higher costs, and without the wealth of experience that the pioneers have already accumulated.

The interplay of these three dimensions – customers, investors, regulators – creates a picture that is unambiguous:

Sustainable purchasing is not the opposite of competitiveness… it is competitiveness, taken to its logical conclusion.

It means understanding and structurally anticipating tomorrow’s requirements today. And it means taking seriously the signals that markets, capital markets, and legislators have long been sending – signals that underpin the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz with an urgency that no longer requires any charitable interpretation.

IV. From insight to action … and the role of ADCONIA

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is a catastrophe – for energy markets, for the global economy, for companies whose supply chains are currently being disrupted, and for millions of people who are feeling the consequences in the form of price increases, supply shortages, and economic insecurity. There’s no way to sugarcoat it.

Adconia is a management consultancy specializing in sustainable supply chains, supporting companies throughout the entire procurement process – from initial assessment to operational implementation. The focus is always on linking sustainability requirements with business realities: measures that are ecologically sound and economically viable, ensure regulatory compliance, and simultaneously generate competitive advantages.

Specifically, Adconia helps companies first create complete transparency across their supply chain – extending beyond the first supplier level and into the depths of the sub-supplier structure. Structured analysis and data collection processes reveal dependencies. Based on this data, Adconia works with its clients to develop a sustainable procurement strategy that defines clear goals, derives prioritized measures, and establishes measurable KPIs – so that progress is not only claimed but also documented and managed.