Are you sure you are not wasting €100 000 per year on your energy budget?
For companies with an annual energy spend of around €2 million, commodity and non-commodity combined, savings are often hiding in plain sight.

In practice, organisations achieve an average saving of 8% on the commodity part of their energy budget. Not through luck or market timing, but through structure.

Yet one lever is underestimated.

Clicks without a strategy feel active, but reduce control.

Most click decisions happen reactively.
Prices rise. Budgets come under pressure. A click is made.

It feels like active management.
In reality, there is no predefined decision framework.

Each click becomes a one-off decision.
Uncertainty increases. Budget control decreases.

Depending on market conditions and risk profile, power and gas click moments makes up to a 20% difference in the commodity price.

Volatility is not the enemy. Disorganization is.
Looking at historical forward prices, the same pattern repeats itself every year.
Within a single delivery year, electricity and gas prices often fluctuate by tens of percent.
This means the exact same volume can be fixed at very different prices within the same year.

- Companies that fix everything at once depend entirely on timing.
- Companies that spread decisions build their price step by step and end up closer to the market average.
- Organisations that take those decisions within a predefined framework consistently perform better than the average.

Not by predicting the market.
But by organising decisions.

A click strategy starts from your organisation.

A well-designed click strategy answers critical questions:
- How sensitive is your budget to price fluctuations?
- What level of risk is acceptable?
- Which volumes must be secured, and which can fluctuate?
- Over what time horizon are decisions spread?

These answers translate into a clear framework with predefined click moments, bandwidths and rules.
Without structure, volatility controls you.
With structure, volatility becomes a tool.

When it comes to contract tendering, most companies look at the price first. Fair enough. But what is often underestimated is how long-term energy price is also determined by the contract terms.

Smart tendering creates an average of up to 5% direct savings (€50 000) on the commodity part

With an annual energy budget of €2 million (commodity and non-commodity), there is much greater potential for savings than is often assumed. Smart tendering creates an average of up to 5% direct savings (€50 000) on the commodity part, but the contract terms determine whether you can realise up to 20% additional savings potential during the term.

In combination with structural invoice control (average 2%), this creates a total savings potential of up to 8%, without any investment.

A good contract is in line with your business activity, consumption profile, and risk appetite.

Not only at the start, but especially because the contract allows for adjustments during its term, based on market developments and changed operational realities.

In practice, we see that many energy contracts are functional but not designed to continue to actively steer when the market or context changes. This is precisely where structural value is lost.

What do we mean by that specifically?

Multisite organisations with production and consumption at different locations
In organisations with multiple sites, we often see locally produced energy being injected at spot prices, while elsewhere energy is being purchased at contract prices.

When the contract structure allows for ‘netting’ across multiple sites, injection and consumption are combined into a single profile. This creates a single unit price and allows market knowledge to be utilized at the overall level, rather than losing value per site.
No investments. Just contractual design and active monitoring.
Contracts with customized click options and staggered decision-making moments allow market information to be translated into purchases step by step, rather than committing everything at once.

Mismatch between risk profile and click strategy

Some organisations click too quickly on too large a volume, while others leave too much open without consciously wanting to. In both cases, a gap arises between risk and control.
Contracts that allow volumes to be clicked in phases and the click strategy to be adjusted make it possible to make decisions based on progressive insight. The final price thus becomes the result of continuous choices, not chance.

So where does it go wrong?

Not because suppliers cannot offer this. But because they work within their own products and standard contracts.

As a result, tendering often takes place under time pressure and with a focus on comparison at a single point in time. Whereas the real value lies in creating room for decision-making and systematically utilizing market knowledge over the entire term.

So, the question is not only: ‘Was this a good price at the time of signing?’

But above all: ‘Does this contract allow me to continue to translate market knowledge into informed decisions when the market moves?’

From contract to control

In 2026, contract tendering will no longer be an administrative exercise, but a management tool. A way to control price volatility, take risks consciously and create budget certainty regardless of what the market does.