Here’s a question that keeps me up at night:
How many business relationships are built on assumptions rather than actual data?
Think about it. A new supplier approaches you. They seem solid — good website, confident pitch, decent references. So you sign the contract. Six months later, they’re in administration.
It happens constantly. And most of the time, the warning signs were sitting in plain sight — in filing histories, overdue accounts, director changes, deteriorating financials. Data that’s publicly available. Data that almost nobody checks.
There’s this bizarre gap in how we make business decisions. We spend weeks agonising over brand positioning or marketing spend, but we’ll onboard a six-figure supplier based on a firm handshake and a well-designed slide deck.
The uncomfortable truth is that most due diligence in UK business is either theatre (ticking boxes to satisfy a process) or gut feeling dressed up as professional judgment.
Here’s what I’m genuinely curious about: Where does your organisation actually draw the line? At what point — deal size, contract type, client tier — do you say “we need to look harder at this company before we proceed”?
And when you do look harder, what does that actually mean in practice? A quick Companies House search? A formal credit check? A full financial analysis?
I suspect the honest answers vary wildly — even within the same industry, sometimes within the same team.
Would love to hear how people in finance, BD, or compliance actually handle this in the real world, not how the policy document says they should.
If you want to see what proper company intelligence looks like before your next decision, take a look at https://borsch.ai