Pest Control: The Risk Procurement Keeps Underrating

Why Pest Control is Procurement's Risk Blind Spot

Pest control rarely makes it into the top tier of procurement strategy conversations. It sits below cybersecurity, below supply chain resilience, and often below catering and cleaning among facilities categories. The National Pest Management Association (NPMA), in association with Procurement Magazine, have published a new report which reveals a disconnect between how vendors are ranked and the actual risk they pose.

Drawing on a survey of procurement professionals across manufacturing, retail, food & beverage, healthcare and logistics, the report finds a wide gap between how much risk buyers associate with pest control and how much priority it actually gets internally.

A risk everyone recognizes, few prioritize

Three in four respondents (77%) point to health and safety incidents as the top risk of skipping professional pest control, with regulatory fines, operational disruption and brand damage close behind. Yet only 36% say the strategic importance of pest control is fully understood within their organization.

"Pest control gets treated like a cost until an audit, a complaint or a shutdown forces attention," said Dr Jim Fredericks, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs at NPMA.

• 85% of organisations involve procurement in pest control vendor selection

• 70% also involve facilities management, and 62% involve health & safety

• Only 36% say pest control's strategic importance is fully understood internally

• 68% rank compliance and certifications as the top vendor evaluation criterion – ahead of cost

• 72% say contract expiry is the main trigger for a re-tender, though poor performance (60%) runs a close second

Shared ownership, unclear accountability

The research also digs into who actually owns the pest control decision. Procurement leads vendor selection at most organisations, but facilities management and health & safety are close behind, with operations and sustainability increasingly in the room too.

"Three departments touching the same decision usually means no single owner is accountable when things go wrong, only when they need signing off," said Aaron McMillan, Editor, Procurement Magazine. "Until that's named, 'shared ownership' is really shared exposure."

That mix isn't necessarily a bad thing. Shared oversight can mean broader risk coverage across a facility, and it points to pest control being treated less as a tactical line item and more as a genuine risk management concern. But it does leave a harder question unanswered: once a contract is signed, who is actually held accountable for the outcome?

Buyers are shopping on proof, not price

The report also looks at what wins when contracts come up for renewal. Compliance and certifications rank as the top vendor evaluation criterion at 68%, ahead of proven track record (61%) and cost itself (56%), a sign that buyers want confidence a programme will hold up under scrutiny, not just a competitive quote.

That same rigour shows up in how RFPs are judged, with compliance documentation, pricing transparency and clearly defined service scope topping the list of what buyers look for on paper before a vendor even gets to the table.

What else the report covers

Beyond governance and risk perception, the full report benchmarks vendor evaluation criteria, national versus local supplier preferences, contract review cycles, how buyers discover and shortlist vendors, the value-added services procurement teams now expect and how pest control visibility affects brand and reputation.

For procurement teams looking to benchmark their own approach, or vendors looking to understand what buyers actually reward in an RFP – the complete findings, including the full data set and further analysis from Dr Fredericks and Procurement Magazine, are available in the full report.