sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international comparative study
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable procurement in thepublic sector: an international
comparative studyStephen Brammer
Strategic Management Group, Warwick Business School,University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, and
Helen WalkerLogistics and Operations Management Section, Cardiff Business School,
Cardiff, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Public bodies are being encouraged to procure sustainably, to reduce their social andenvironmental footprint and in order to stimulate sustainability in the private sector. However, little isknown about how public sector organisations internationally are responding to this encouragement orof the conditions that are most conducive to sustainable procurement (SP). The purpose of this paper isto address these gaps in our knowledge so as to inform policy development at the government andorganisational levels.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors report the findings of a survey of SP practiceswithin a sample of over 280 public procurement practitioners from 20 countries and with collectiveresponsibility for expenditure totalling $45bn p.a.
Findings – The authors’ analysis shows that some SP practices are evident in public sectorprocurement practice and that the extent and nature of SP practices varies significantly across regions.In addition, the authors highlight the main facilitators of, and barriers to, engagement with SP andinvestigate their importance for engagement with particular dimensions of SP.
Research limitations/implications – Survey respondents are volunteers and may to some degreebe more interested in, or engaged with, SP than other public sector organisations. The analysis iscross-sectional and therefore provides only a snapshot of SP practice in the public sector organisationsstudied.
Practical implications – The paper identifies how policy and practice in SP vary across regions,providing practical insights into whether and how government policies are being implemented aroundthe world.
Originality/value – The paper provides the first systematic and comprehensive insight into howpublic bodies are implementing SP internationally and of the major situational factors that are shapingengagement with SP. The authors evaluate the current effectiveness of policy initiatives regarding SPand highlight the organisational catalysts and inhibitors of greater involvement in SP.
Keywords Public procurement, Social responsibility
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionIn light of environmental degradation, climate change, resource depletion, and persistentglobal poverty, the supply management profession is increasingly being called upon tocontribute to broader organisational goals of sustainable development through theinclusion of social and environmental criteria within procurement processes (Srivastava,2007; Preuss, 2009). In the private sector, a large literature has explored engagement
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm
IJOPM31,4
452
Received July 2008Revised January 2010,June 2010,December 2010Accepted December 2010
International Journal of Operations &Production ManagementVol. 31 No. 4, 2011pp. 452-476q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0144-3577DOI 10.1108/01443571111119551
with sustainability in supply chain management and has highlighted benefits in theform of risk reduction and performance enhancement (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004;Jayaraman et al., 2007). In spite of the development of encouraging policy frameworksinternationally (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2005;European Commission, 2005a) relatively little research has addressed sustainableprocurement (SP) in a public sector context (Preuss, 2009; Walker and Brammer, 2009).Neither has extant research explored how the engagement of public bodies with SPvaries internationally.
In light of these observations, we provide the first systematic and comprehensiveinsight into the state of SP practices globally. Given the scale and importance of publicprocurement, and the capacity for sustainable public procurement to play an importantrole in delivering social benefits both directly and by influencing the activities of privatesector organisations, it is important to shed greater light on how effective policyinitiatives have been in encouraging public organisations to procure sustainably(McCrudden, 2004; Weiss and Thurbon, 2006). Drawing upon a sample over 280 publicsector organisations from across the public sector globally, the nature and extent of SPpractice is investigated. The study makes two particular contributions. First, theanalysis provides an insight into the progress made regarding the policy commitmentsto SP globally. Second, the study investigates the factors perceived to be the mostimportant facilitators and barriers to the further development of SP and explores howthese relate to engagement with particular aspects of SP. These contributions illuminatethe policies and interventions necessary to further develop SP practice.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we review thewider literatures on public and SP, into which our study contributes. Subsequently, weintroduce our conceptual background and discuss the variation globally in the pattern ofSP policies. We then outline our empirical methods, including an analysis of the samplebefore presenting our findings. A final section discusses the findings and concludes.
Prior researchPublic procurementPublic procurement refers to “the acquisition of goods and services by government orpublic sector organizations” (Uyarra and Flanagan, 2010) and is one of the key economicactivities of government (Thai, 2001). In spite of its long history and significant scale,public procurement has only relatively recently been the subject of considerableacademic research (Trionfetti, 2000; Brulhart and Trionfetti, 2004). Regarding the scaleof public procurement, recent estimates suggesting that between 8 and 25 per cent of thegross domestic product (GDP) of Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) countries and 16 per cent of European Union (EU) GDP beingattributable to government purchases of goods or services (Afonso et al., 2005; OECD,2009). Prior research has differentiated between types of public procurement and arguedthat procurement represents an important policy tool that could help to achieveoutcomes in society that are consistent with broader policy goals.
Although a wide range of issues have been addressed in public procurement research,two major themes have emerged in existing research. The first theme explores theimpacts of public procurement on the pattern of economic activity, with a particularfocus on the tendency of public procurement to favour relatively local companies overforeign suppliers (Laffont and Tirole, 1991; Tigner, 1991; Vagstad, 1995; Brulhart and
Sustainableprocurement
453
Trionfetti, 2004), and in the case of US “buy American” policies, these tendencies areinstitutionalised (Vagstad, 1995). Other studies examine the supply relationshipsbetween the private and public sectors, and the processes of tendering and contracting(Bovaird, 2006; Gelderman et al., 2006).
A second important body of research examines the role that governmentprocurement can play as a stimulus for innovative activity among companies withina region. Public procurement has been at the centre of recent discussions on innovationpolicy on both European and national levels (Aho et al., 2006). This theme is consistentwith research in the private sector that has shown how value chain activities affectinnovation. For example, within the value chain, procurement activities are associatedwith greater product quality and innovation (Prajogo et al., 2008). In the context of thepublic sector, research in this area has shown that government procurement is a key partof a demand-oriented innovation policy (Edler and Georghiou, 2007; Aschhoff andSofka, 2008).
Sustainable procurementReflecting broader concerns to achieve sustainable development, SP has recentlyacquired a high degree of salience in policy circles internationally. Formally, SP has beendefined by the UK SP Task Force as:
[. . .] a process whereby organisations meet their needs for goods, services, works and utilitiesin a way that achieves value for money on a whole life basis in terms of generating benefits notonly to the organisation, but also to society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to theenvironment (DEFRA, 2006).
Significantly, and in contrast to earlier foci on environmental procurement (EuropeanCommission, 2006), SP embodies concern for social, environmental and economicaspects of procurement decisions.
Research concerned with aspects of SP has a relatively long history in private sectororganisations and originated with a particular focus on the management ofenvironmental issues in supply chains, or “green supply chain management”(Zhu et al., 2005; Srivastava, 2007). Early research in this area was primarilyconcerned with managing environmental impacts within supply chains and, inparticular, to highlight the strategic threats and opportunities associated withenvironmental issues. For example, Lamming and Hampson (1996) argue that:
[. . .] the purchasing function is beginning to play a more important role in the future strategy ofbusinesses and will need to have policies in place that can cope with a range of issues, many ofwhich closely affect the environment.
As research concerned with green supply chain management developed, key themesincluded investigating the antecedents of engagement with environmental issues insupply management (Vachon and Klassen, 2006).
Although the bulk of existing research on sustainable supply chain managementfocuses on environmental issues, a number of studies have focused on social issues.As with the literature on green supply management, the tendency is for studies to focuson particular issues such as bribery or unfair contracting (Wood, 1995; Carter, 2000),supplier employment conditions (Graafland, 2002; Mamic, 2005) and ethnic minoritysuppliers (Carter et al., 1999; Krause et al., 1999). More recently research has begun toexamine sustainability in supply chain activities in an integrated way such that both
IJOPM31,4
454
social and environmental issues in supply chains are seen as part of a related whole.The engagement of consumer goods manufacturing companies with five aspects ofresponsible procurement has been examined, including the environment, diversity,human rights, philanthropy, and safety (Carter and Jennings, 2002, 2004; Carter, 2005),which are treated as a single construct “purchasing social responsibility (PSR)”.
Sustainable public procurementSP refers to the act of integrating a concern for broader social and environmentalimpacts within procurement undertaken by government or public sector bodies (Preuss,2009; Walker and Brammer, 2009). Research concerned with SP is either concerned withthe direct or indirect achievement of broader social and environmental ends throughprocurement activities. Regarding the direct achievement of social and environmentalends through procurement, relatively little research exists. One study explores theimpacts of a project designed to leverage public procurement in Northern Ireland toimprove the region’s performance in respect of long-term unemployment (Erridge andHenningan, 2007).
Most extant research on SP focuses on indirectly stimulating social andenvironmental benefits through exerting pressure on suppliers to reduce their ownimpacts. Research in SP has tended to examine particular case studies, often taking asectoral perspective by investigating how sustainability can be encouraged whenbuying from suppliers in specific industries. For example, prior research has examinedSP initiatives in the building and construction (Faith-Ell et al., 2006; Hall and Purchase,2006), information technology (Matthews and Axelrod, 2004), food (Rimmington et al.,2006), and timber and forest products sectors (Bull et al., 2001).
In a similar way, research has tended to examine SP within particular countries,including the UK (Hall and Purchase, 2006), Sweden (Faith-Ell et al., 2006), the USA(Coggburn, 2004), Germany (Gunther and Scheibe, 2006), and Canada (Hartshorn et al.,2005). Relatively little existing research is comparative, either across products/sectors oracross countries or regions.
Some studies have specifically focused on SP policy, and the development of tools toassist policy implementation. For example, it was found that green procurement hasbeen encouraged through legislation, providing information and dismantling barriers(Thomson and Jackson, 2007). A tool to support green procurement has been developedfor municipalities in Germany (Gunther and Scheibe, 2006), while a Californian casestudy develops a priority setting tool for greener state government purchasing(Swanson et al., 2005), which considers purchasing volume, environmental impacts,potential for improvement and institutional factors such as existing state policies andupcoming contract renewals. Legal issues have also been considered, including theacceptance of green contract award criteria in public procurement (Kunzlik, 2003).
Conceptual background and policy contextThis section addresses two objectives. First, a conceptual framework is developed thatprovides a lens through which to explore cross-national variation in SP. Second, anoverview of the character of SP policies within the principal regions considered in ourstudy is provided. Our conceptual framework (Figure 1) draws on a model of theinfluences of procurement directives upon compliance among procurementprofessionals in the EU (Gelderman et al., 20063), which provides a useful general
Sustainableprocurement
455
framework for examining how public procurement policy translates into practice.We make one major adaptation to the model, which centred upon organisationalresponses to a common policy environment. Our analysis encompasses numerousregions, thus bringing significant variation in policy environments. In order to reflectthis feature of our analysis, we extend the model to include the importance of the nationalpolicy context, and variation in this across regions, as an influence upon SP.
The conceptual model suggests that SP arises primarily because of pressures on theorganisation to undertake it, stemming directly from the character of the SP policyenvironment. The framework proposes four further influences on SP practices. For thepurposes of analytical clarity, these influences are discussed separately, yet in practicethey may be related to each other. For example, a lack of product availability may beassociated with greater costs of sourcing sustainably.
The first influence emphasises the role of perceived costs and benefits to engagementwith SP. Though there are examples of win-win situations where financial andsustainability ends are aligned, such as the elimination of waste (Porter and van deLinde, 1995), sustainable methods are often perceived as more expensive. Given the tightbudget constraints and countervailing objectives faced by most public sectororganisations, perceptions regarding the financial viability and cost-effectiveness ofSP are expected to play a particularly important role. It has been found that cost concernsare the most serious obstacle for taking environmental factors into account in thepurchasing process (Min and Galle, 2001). Organisations are more likely to pursue SP incontexts where they perceive win-win situations, but may be reluctant where the payoffsare unclear and where it comes into conflict with the directives to maintain competitionand deliver value for money (Rao and Holt, 2005).
The second influence focuses concerns familiarity with SP. In order for anorganisation to be able to effectively implement SP, it is necessary to understand theconcept of SP and related government policies. Organisations also need the skills,competencies and tools necessary to make SP happen. Sustainability is itself a contestedand complex concept, and procurement professionals may lack the skills and knowledgenecessary to successfully implement SP. A recent survey found that 83 per cent ofpurchasing professionals considered themselves ill equipped to deliver sustainability
Figure 1.A conceptual model ofthe influences upon SP
Familiaritywith policies
Perceived costs/benefits of policy
Organisationalincentives/pressures
Source: Adapted from Gelderman et al. (2006)
Supplier availability/resistance
Sustainable publicprocurement
Nationalpolicy context
IJOPM31,4
456
through procurement (Snell, 2006). Studies have found that purchasing managers areunsure of how to incorporate ethical and social issues in their buying (Cooper et al., 2000;Maignan et al., 2002).
The third influence concerns the availability sustainably produced goods andservices. Given that many of the goods and services procured by the public sector arehighly specialist, identifying sustainable sources of supply may be very challenging insome contexts. Sustainable and non-sustainable products vary in how substitutablethey are (Norton, 1995). For example, green energy suppliers or recycled paper may bemore substitutable than a specialist piece of medical equipment.
The final influence concerns organisational incentives and pressures for SP.In part, this depends on organisational culture and the degree to which the organisationis supportive of sustainability and/or of change in general (O’Brien, 1999;Gonzalez-Padron et al., 2008). This influence includes the extent to which there issupport for SP amongst senior management and whether organisational processes andstructures support SP (Bansal and Roth, 2000).
SP policy frameworks around the worldThe policy environment regarding SP influences variation in SP practice, and thissection discusses the character of policy frameworks for countries and regions relevantto the subsequent empirical analysis. The aim is not to be exhaustive, since a completeanalysis of the policy frameworks concerning public procurement lies outside the scopeof this paper. Instead, the aim is to provide a flavour of the variation in these importantinstitutional contexts internationally.
The policy context concerning public procurement in the UK is based on a set ofguiding principles, including transparency, competitiveness, accountability, efficiency,legality, and integrity, that have the ultimate aim of supporting the delivery of “bestvalue for money” in public procurement (HM Treasury, 2000). “Best value for money” isdefined as “the optimum combination of whole life cost and quality (or fitness forpurpose) to meet the customer’s requirements” (HM Treasury, 2000). Regarding “valuefor money” the review of public sector efficiency (Gershon, 2004) sought to identifyopportunities to deliver “sustainable efficiencies in the use of resources within bothcentral government and the wider public sector” and highlighted that significantsavings in procurement were expected to be obtained through:
[. . .] better supply side management [. . .] seeking to communicate and manage likely aggregatepublic sector demand in a strategic way with the supply sector [and] further professionalizationof the procurement function within the public sector (p. 14).
Consistent with a focus on “sustainable efficiencies” through a focus on whole lifecosting, “best value of money” gives scope to public bodies to take social andenvironmental policy objectives into account in their procurement activities. This wasrecognized by the UK Government in its 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy, and anSP Task Force was established in 2005 to develop SP guidance. The UK Governmentstated its goal to be amongst the leaders in the EU on SP by 2009 (DEFRA, 2007).
Public procurement in the EU is guided by national policy frameworks, coupled withan overarching EU policy framework that is designed to open up the EU’s publicprocurement market to competition, outlawing “buy national” policies and promotingthe free movement of goods and services. One study examined the state of development
Sustainableprocurement
457
of national action plans regarding green or SP in the EU (Steurer et al., 2007). Of the 27 EUmember states, their analysis showed that only a third of governments had adopted anaction plan concerning SP by April 2007, with a further five countries having a draftpolicy concerning SP that had not yet been adopted. Countries with relativelywell-developed plans included The Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK, while countriesstill in the early stages of developing national action plans included Germany, Greece,the Slovak Republic, and Malta. The emphasis of SP policy in the EU is environmentalrather then social in character. For example, in Italy there is a mandate that 30 per cent ofgoods purchased by public administration complies with ecological criteria. Denmark,France, The Netherlands, and the UK have public procurement policies specifically forwood and paper products, and in Belgium there is an initiative to ensure that 50 per centof government vehicles comply with specific environmental criteria.
SP policy frameworks in the USA have, alongside environmental purchasing, aparticular emphasis on avoiding discrimination and providing equal opportunities, in linewith the constitution (McCrudden, 2004). These issues have most clearly been crystallisedin the development of federal policies that promote procurement from women andminority owned businesses with some emphasis on purchasing from indigenous peoples.Non-discrimination also shaped US policies regarding overseas procurement, placingpressure on the UK Government to stop religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, andupon the South African government to end apartheid (McCrudden, 2004).
Canadian federal government procurement policies emphasise similar economicallyoriented aspects of purchasing as those found in Europe including mandates concerningpromotion of competition and value for money. However, in addition to these, Canadianpublic procurement policies include foci on non-discrimination and ensuringprocurement opportunities from Aboriginal businesses. The Canadian federalgovernment founded the Office of Greening Government Operations (OGGO) in 2005,which developed its Policy on Green Procurement in 2006. Through this policy, allgovernment bodies are required to formulate green procurement targets and allpersonnel responsible for procurement need to be trained in green procurement. TheOGGO provides purchasers with a decision making toolkit and a checklist on their website to encourage them to consider sustainability.
In Japan, a law on green purchasing was passed in 2001 that compelled allgovernment bodies to develop and implement green purchasing policy (EuropeanCoalition for Corporate Justice, 2007). In South Africa, public procurement was seen asan important policy lever in the post apartheid world. Specifically, the black economicempowerment initiative encourages the public sector to buy from black-ownedbusinesses in order to redress the economic advantages of white-owned businessesattributable to apartheid (Department of Trade and Industry South Africa, 2003).In Australia, local businesses were supported by state-based schemes such as “BuyQueensland” and a SP framework was developed to aid buyers.
To summarise, a range of aspects of sustainability are the subject of explicitprocurement policies around the world. The environmental aspects of sustainabilityseem well represented in policy frameworks within Europe. In other countries, localissues often relating to historical concerns, such as the need to empower minority groupswithin society, are an important part of the procurement policy landscape.
This study seeks to answer two research questions relating to SP, and the methodsfor addressing these questions are outlined in the next section:
IJOPM31,4
458
RQ1. How do regions differ in their approach to SP?
RQ2. What enablers and barriers to SP exist?
MethodsSampleGiven that our research seeks to provide a broad overview of the nature of involvementin SP internationally, we chose to adopt a survey method since such methods have theadvantage of being suitable for distribution across a wide geographical area and to alarge number of organisations (Alreck and Settle, 1985). The SP questionnaire can beviewed online (www.bath.ac.uk/crisps/projects/pdf/SP_Questionnaire.pdf).
Since, there is no global database of public procurement professionals, or indeed aglobal database of public bodies from which procurement professionals could beapproached, we adopted a widely employed non-probability sampling strategy – theso-called “snowball sampling” or “respondent-driven” approach (Heckathorn, 2002).This approach has been found to be highly useful in researching hidden populations(Kalton and Anderson, 1986), to provide statistically reliable sampling properties in awide range of circumstances (Salganik and Heckathorn, 2004), and has been used inprior research in supply chain management (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004; Zhu et al., 2005). Oursampling strategy began with an approach to a wide list of contacts in publicprocurement around the world encountered in earlier research (Walker et al., 2007;Walker and Brammer, 2009).
An initial e-mail approach was made to each contact, asking them if they would bewilling to forward the survey throughout their professional network including contactsthey had in other countries and asking their contacts to do similarly where they werewilling. This “snowball” sampling strategy is relatively commonly used in contexts,such as in this study, that are characterised by there being relatively small numbers ofappropriate respondents who are members of well developed professional groups. Withthe support of these contacts, the survey instrument was directly e-mailed to over 1,000public procurement professionals in 25 countries. The survey was sent by our contactsto English-speaking procurers only, and was not translated, so the sample will beskewed towards those public procurers that speak English.
The survey was implemented between March and December 2006, and allrespondents were procurement directors or managers in public sector organisations.Tests revealed neither significant differences in the responses of early and lateresponses, nor differences in the responses of respondents with different job titles. One ofthe limitations of respondent-driven sampling strategies is the difficulty encountered inevaluating the size of the population being studied, and thus the rates of responseobtained for the population as a whole, and sub-groups within this population. However,having consulted with the contacts that we initially sent our survey to regarding theirsubsequent distribution of the survey, it is estimated that the 283 responses drawn from20 countries that were ultimately received represents an overall response rate in theregion of 18 per cent. We received no responses from five European countries, France,Italy, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland.
Table I provides a detailed description of the sample. Panel A describes thedistribution of the sample across regions, and the countries each region includes aredetailed. A little more than a third of the sample comes from the UK with the remainder ofthe sample comprising significant sub-samples of organisations from the USA/Canada
Sustainableprocurement
459
UK
Wes
tern
Eu
rop
eE
aste
rnE
uro
pe
Sca
nd
inav
iaN
orth
Am
eric
aR
est
ofth
ew
orld
En
gla
nd
.N
orth
ern
Irel
and
,S
cotl
and
,W
ales
Au
stri
a.B
elg
ium
,G
erm
any
,Ir
elan
d,
Mal
ta,
Th
eN
eth
erla
nd
s,P
ortu
gal
Hu
ng
ary
,L
ith
uan
ia,
Pol
and
,S
lov
enia
Den
mar
k,
Fin
lan
d,
Sw
eden
Can
ada,
US
A
Au
stra
lia,
Bra
zil,
Ch
ina,
Jap
an,
Sou
thA
fric
aA
llre
gio
ns
Panel
A–
geog
raph
icco
mpo
siti
onof
sam
ple
Nu
mb
erof
org
anis
atio
ns
106
4936
2952
1128
3P
erce
nta
ge
ofsa
mp
le37
.517
.312
.710
.218
.43.
910
0.0
Panel
B–
sect
oralco
mpo
siti
onof
sam
ple
Gen
eral
pu
bli
cse
rvic
es(%
)38
.735
.416
.751
.746
.236
.437
.9H
ealt
h(%
)26
.410
.416
.73.
40.
00.
014
.2E
du
cati
on(%
)19
.88.
338
.917
.223
.10.
019
.9Ju
stic
ean
dp
ub
lic
ord
er(%
)8.
50.
02.
80.
03.
80.
04.
3O
ther
sect
ors
(%)
6.6
46.9
25.0
27.6
26.9
63.6
24.6
Tot
al(%
)10
0.0
100.
010
0.0
100.
010
0.0
100.
010
0.0
Panel
C–
des
crip
tive
stati
stic
sfo
rnum
bers
ofsu
pplie
rsand
contr
act
lengt
hA
ver
age
con
trac
tle
ng
th(y
ears
)3.
52.
41.
43.
23.
22.
32.
9A
ver
age
No.
ofsu
pp
lier
s3,
726
1,60
374
01,
558
7,10
717
,545
3,89
8In
the
last
ten
years
,ou
rto
talnum
ber
ofsu
pplie
rshas:
Sta
yed
the
sam
e(%
)28
.331
.925
.734
.531
.920
.029
.6R
edu
ced
(%)
42.4
27.7
11.4
24.1
14.9
40.0
28.8
Incr
ease
d(%
)29
.340
.462
.941
.453
.240
.041
.6P
erce
nta
ge
chan
ge
up
ord
own
18.3
5.0
44.7
44.0
24.1
211
.021
.9P
anel
D–
des
crip
tive
stati
stic
sfo
rex
pendit
ure
and
supp
lier
conce
ntr
ati
onA
ver
age
exp
end
itu
re(£
M)
238.
316
5.2
3.0
47.3
157.
813
6.0
156.
8P
erce
nta
ge
spen
dw
ith
top
thre
esu
pp
lier
s21
.623
.639
.223
.817
.836
.524
.9
Table I.Sample characteristicsand descriptive statistics
IJOPM31,4
460
(18.4per cent of the sample), Western Europe (17.3percent), Eastern Europe (12.7percent),and Scandinavia (10.2 per cent). A small group of observations came from the rest of theworld. Panel B describes the sectoral composition of the sample, again broken down byregion. General public service providers, typically local authorities or regionalgovernments, make up the largest sub-sample of public sector organisations in thesample, with bodies involved with education and healthcare also strongly represented.It is apparent that there is some variation in the composition of the sample across regionswith comparatively few public sector organisations involved in “other” aspects of thepublic sector in the UK, and relatively more in the Western European sub-sample.The annual total spend of the sample public sector organisations is approximately £45bn.
It is clear that UK-based public sector organisations were relatively over-sampled,while those from the rest of the world were relatively under-sampled. This may bebecause as well as e-mail distribution within the UK, the questionnaire was distributedin hard copy to public procurers at the third National SP Conference held in London inNovember 2006, which increased the UK response rate.
The remainder of Table I provides sample descriptive statistics for a range of othervariables that collectively characterise the procurement climate. These figures show, forexample, that the average organisation in the sample had about 4,000 active suppliers,that the average contract lasted approximately three years, that the largest threesuppliers typically account for around 22 per cent of an organisation’s spending, andthat 40 per cent of the sample public sector organisations had a wider supplier base thanthey had ten years ago.
Measuring SPIn order to investigate engagement with SP, we made use of measurement scalesdeveloped in a previous study of PSR (Carter and Carter, 1998; Carter and Jennings, 2004;Carter, 2005) which has the advantage of utilising a scale of proven reliability andvalidity. PSR is a higher-order construct consisting of five unique dimensions: theenvironment, diversity, human rights, philanthropy, and safety (an additional ethicsdimension was found not to constitute an element of PSR and discarded in the originalstudy). A full list of aspects encompassed in our operationalisation of SP, their origins inprior research, and a brief explanation of the underlying logic for their inclusion isprovided in Table II.
Since, the PSR scales were developed in the context of procurement by private sectororganisations, we sought to ensure the face validity and efficacy of these items in apublic sector context through a review by an expert panel and piloting the questionnairewith ten public sector procurement officers from the UK. While this process largelyconfirmed the usefulness of the five dimensions of PSR within the public sector context,it was strongly suggested that we ought to add a dimension that related to engaging inprocurement from small and local enterprises. The pilot participants felt that this was akey part of how they engaged in SP, both because of the impacts on local social andeconomic development and because of the environmental benefits of reducedtransportation. Reflecting this, we added a small and medium-sized enterprise(SME)/local dimension with two new items (“Currently our purchasing function [. . .] (1)purchases from small suppliers (,250 employees); (2) purchases from local suppliers”).Regarding the definition of “small” companies, we followed the European Commission(2005b) definition of having fewer than 250 employees.
Sustainableprocurement
461
Sustainable procurementitems Origin(s) Explanation
“Currently, our purchasing function [. . .]”EnvironmentUses a life-cycle analysis toevaluate the environmentalfriendliness of products andpackagingAsks suppliers to commit towaste reduction goalsReduces packaging materialParticipates in the design ofproducts for disassemblyParticipates in the design ofproducts for recycling orreuse
Carter and Carter (1998),Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Carter (1998),Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Carter (1998),Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Carter (1998),Carter and Jennings (2004)
“The environmental activities includethose conducted primarily within thepurchasing function, such purchasingrecyclable and reusable packaging andefforts to reduce the amount ofpackaging material purchased, as wellas projects conducted with otherfunctions within the firm and withsuppliers. These additional activitiesinclude working with suppliers toensure that their processes and productsare environmentally sound andconducting life cycle analyses anddesigning products for reuse recycling”(Carter and Jennings, 2002, p. 153)
DiversityHas a formal minority andwomen-owned businessenterprise (MWBE) supplierpurchase programmePurchases from MWBEsuppliers
Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Jennings (2004)
“Diversity issues primarily surroundprograms designed to encouragesourcing from MWBE suppliers”(Carter and Jennings, 2002, p. 154)
SafetyEnsures the safe, incomingmovement of product to ourfacilitiesEnsures that suppliers’locations are operated in asafe manner
Carter and Jennings (2004)
Carter and Jennings (2004)
“A related issue is ensuring safeworking conditions al suppliers’facilities. Safely issues also involve themovement of incoming purchasedmaterial” (Carter and Jennings, 2002,p. 154)
Human rightsVisits suppliers’ plants toensure that they are notusing sweatshop labourEnsures that supplierscomply with child labourlawsAsks suppliers to pay a“living wage” greater than acountry’s or region’sminimum wage
Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Jennings (2004)
“Human rights issues center aroundensuring that suppliers maintain fairand humane working conditions andpay a reasonable wage to their workers”(Carter and Jennings, 2002, p. 154)
PhilanthropyDonates to philanthropicorganizationsVolunteers at local charities
Carter and Jennings (2004)Carter and Jennings (2004)
“Philanthropy and community activitiescan include helping to develop localsuppliers, and auctioning or donatinggifts which might be accepted on thepan of the firm from foreign suppliers”(Carter and Jennings, 2002, p. 154)
(continued )
Table II.Survey items for SP, theirorigins and character
IJOPM31,4
462
Providing an overview of SP in our sampleThe first stage of our analysis seeks to provide an overview of the nature of engagementwith SP within our sample and to explore respondents’ perceptions of the barriers andfacilitators of their SP activities. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1-5 theextent of their agreement regarding their function’s involvement in particular aspects ofSP. The data are unlikely to be normally distributed, and when testing for differencesbetween groups, we used a non-parametric (Mann-Whitney) test.
Qualitative data were also collected to understand issues concerning SP practice inmore depth. Participants were asked two open questions at the end of the questionnaireasking them “What prevents SP in you organisation?” and “What facilitates SP in yourorganisation?” The second stage of our analysis examined these responses to identifykey themes and counting the incidence of respondent’s listed barriers and facilitators.Open coding involves “breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, andcategorizing data” (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 61), and qualitative data were examinedin order to generate categories of barriers and enablers. The open coding process isinterpretive in nature, and should include the perspectives and voices of the people understudy (Strauss and Corbin, 1994). We have therefore included illustrative quotes fromthe qualitative data, and endeavored to describe barriers and enablers using therespondent’s terminology. The qualitative data were coded until there was a “saturationof categories” (Miles and Huberman, 1994) and no further categories occurred. Tworesearchers conducted the analysis separately to help ensure the categorization wasvalid. The qualitative data were summarised in tables in the findings section, whichshow the percentages of respondents in a given region that identified the particularbarrier/facilitator as playing an important role in shaping their engagement with SP.
Explaining variation in engagement with SPWe sought next to reflect our theoretical model, to examine which factors affect specificareas of SP, while controlling for a range of organisational characteristics. In order tocapture organisations’ engagement with SP, we employ items from Carter and Jennings’(2004) PSR scale. This scale recognizes that SP is a multifaceted phenomenonencompassing a wide range of issues, and has been widely used in prior research. In lightof support for its use in prior research, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis andexplored the reliability of the factors identified using Cronbach’s alphas. Additionally,we conducted Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to explore the normality of the constructs.Broadly, our analyses confirm the validity and reliability of the dimensions of SP
Sustainable procurementitems Origin(s) Explanation
Procurement from local at small firmsPurchases from smallsuppliers (,250 employees)Purchases from localsuppliers
New itemNew item
Procurement professionals interviewedduring the pilot stage of the surveyindicated that purchasing from smallerand more local businesses was animportant part of how they contributedto sustainability through localdevelopment and reducedtransportation Table II.
Sustainableprocurement
463
identified by Carter and Jennings (2004). In particular, the reliability of theenvironmental, diversity, human rights and small/local procurement dimensions arefound to be strong (0.743, 0.841, 0.752, 0.697, respectively); in contrast, the reliability ofthe safety and philanthropy dimensions (0.507, 0.557, respectively) are weaker, perhapssuggesting a reduced focus or relevance of these items within the public sector context.
Regarding the explanatory variables, our first step was to draw upon the open endedqualitative questions that asked respondents what they perceived to be the enablers andbarriers to SP. For each of these categories, we created a dummy variable, each of whichtake a value of one if a barrier or facilitator was mentioned by a respondent, and zerootherwise. We also included a number of control variables in our model, including ameasure of organisational size (captured through the natural logarithm of anorganisation’s number of employees; respondents were asked for the number ofemployees in their organisation, and also whether they were answering for their wholeorganisation or for their unit/department), and dummy variables – one for each region,less one to avoid the dummy variables trap – that take a value of one if an organisation islocated in a given region, and zero otherwise. Organisation size is included to reflect itsimportance in prior research (Min and Galle, 2001), while each organisation’s location isincluded in order to provide a more robust test of the regional differences identified in ouranalytical overview by examining their relevance while controlling for other possibleinfluences.
Based upon this discussion, the specific regression model we estimate takes thefollowing form:
Yij ¼ a0 þ bXj þ gZj þ 1ij ð1Þ
where Yij is the extent of organisation j’s engagement with dimension i of SP, Xj is avector of explanatory variables which are expected to shape organisations’ engagementwith SP (facilitators and barriers), and Zj is a vector of control variables (organisationsize, organisation country of origin).
FindingsCross-region variation in engagement with SPIn order to provide an overview of the state of SP in a given region, we calculated averagescores for each question for public sector organisations within each region. Theseaverage scores are presented in Table III. The final column of Table III provides anaverage for all sample organisations. The findings indicate variation in adoption ofaspects of SP. For example, the five facets of SP most prevalent among sampleorganisations were: buying from small- and medium-sized companies (3.73), purchasingfrom local suppliers (3.62), ensuring the safe incoming movement of product to anorganisation’s facilities (3.40), aiming to reduce packaging materials (3.21) and askingsuppliers to commit to waste reduction goals (3.06).
Other areas of SP are less well embedded in participating organisations. For example,the five least prevalent practices were: participation in the design of products fordisassembly (2.23), the presence of a formal programme for making purchases fromwomen and minority businesses (2.32), making philanthropic donations (2.42), visitingsuppliers’ plants to ensure they are not using sweatshop labour (2.42), and askingsuppliers to pay “living wages” (2.43). Perhaps, surprisingly, given the environmentalorientation of SP policy in most regions, the findings suggest purchasing from small/local
IJOPM31,4
464
Var
iab
leM
ean
son
fiv
e-p
oin
tL
iker
tsc
ales
wh
ere
1¼
dis
agre
est
ron
gly
-5¼
agre
est
ron
gly
UK
Wes
tern
Eu
rop
eE
aste
rnE
uro
pe
Sca
nd
inav
iaU
SA
/Can
ada
RO
WA
llre
gio
ns
106
4936
2852
1128
2
SP
Use
sa
life
-cy
cle
anal
ysi
sto
eval
uat
eth
een
vir
onm
enta
lfr
ien
dli
nes
sof
pro
du
cts
and
pac
kag
ing
2.79
2.52
2.94
2.75
2.63
1.82
2.69
Has
afo
rmal
MW
BE
sup
pli
erp
urc
has
ep
rog
ram
me
2.17
2.02
2.44
1.86
3.04
2.82
2.32
Par
tici
pat
esin
the
des
ign
ofp
rod
uct
sfo
rre
cycl
ing
orre
use
2.39
2.42
2.60
2.07
2.64
2.64
2.44
En
sure
sth
esa
fe,
inco
min
gm
ovem
ent
ofp
rod
uct
toou
rfa
cili
ties
3.44
3.30
3.81
3.07
3.35
3.00
3.40
Pu
rch
ases
from
MW
BE
sup
pli
ers
2.53
2.17
2.64
2.00
3.70
3.00
2.64
Vol
un
teer
sat
loca
lch
arit
ies
2.66
2.40
2.79
1.75
2.76
2.36
2.54
Ask
ssu
pp
lier
sto
com
mit
tow
aste
red
uct
ion
goa
ls2.
993.
223.
293.
392.
802.
643.
06P
urc
has
esfr
omsm
all
sup
pli
ers
3.96
3.44
3.64
3.32
3.72
4.09
3.73
Vis
its
sup
pli
ers’
pla
nts
toen
sure
that
they
are
not
usi
ng
swea
tsh
opla
bou
r2.
502.
302.
781.
892.
392.
642.
42P
arti
cip
ates
inth
ed
esig
nof
pro
du
cts
for
dis
asse
mb
ly2.
272.
192.
472.
042.
152.
272.
23A
sks
sup
pli
ers
top
aya
“liv
ing
wag
e”g
reat
erth
ana
cou
ntr
y’s
orre
gio
n’s
min
imu
mw
age
2.64
2.09
2.50
2.11
2.46
2.55
2.43
Don
ates
top
hil
anth
rop
icor
gan
isat
ion
s2.
462.
322.
761.
682.
542.
822.
42E
nsu
res
that
sup
pli
ers’
loca
tion
sar
eop
erat
edin
asa
fem
ann
er3.
322.
692.
972.
682.
652.
912.
97E
nsu
res
that
sup
pli
ers
com
ply
wit
hch
ild
lab
our
law
s3.
393.
002.
972.
642.
782.
823.
06P
urc
has
esfr
omlo
cal
sup
pli
ers
3.81
3.50
3.14
3.04
3.93
4.18
3.62
Red
uce
sp
ack
agin
gm
ater
ial
3.30
3.33
3.29
3.46
2.69
2.91
3.21
Table III.International variation
in SP practice
Sustainableprocurement
465
companies and employee health and safety, rather than environmental practices, are themost commonly embedded aspects of SP.
Overall, engagement in SP activities was most developed among the UK public sectororganisations surveyed, along with public sector organisations in Eastern Europe.Similarly, previous research has identified the UK as part of the “Green 7” bestperforming EU member states on green public procurement (European Commission,2006). This means the UK may be among the SP leaders in Europe (DEFRA, 2007). Themean scores for the UK are statistically significantly greater than those for other regionson five aspects of SP: purchasing from small suppliers ( p ¼ 0.001), asking suppliers topay a living wage ( p ¼ 0.008), ensuring suppliers’ locations are operated in a safemanner ( p ¼ 0.000), ensuring that suppliers’ comply with child labour laws ( p ¼ 0.000),and purchasing from local suppliers ( p ¼ 0.008).
SP practices are relatively similar in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, andScandinavia, with a greater emphasis on environmental aspects of procurement than inother regions. For example, Scandinavian organisations are significantly more likely toask suppliers to commit to waste reduction goals ( p ¼ 0.086), while significantly moreEastern European public sector organisations participate in the design of products fordisassembly ( p ¼ 0.020) than is true elsewhere. In contrast to Europe, and consistentwith the emphasis in government policy discussed above, SP practice in the USA ischaracterised by buying from businesses owned by ethnic minorities and women.
Perceived barriers and enablers of SPIn order to evaluate why SP practices vary across regions, respondents were asked twoopen-ended questions about barriers and facilitators of SP activities in theirorganisation. Table IV provides an insight into the most commonly identifieddifficulties encountered in implementing SP.
Hypothetically every cell in the table could be 100 per cent if all respondents in aregion mentioned that barrier. In actuality the percentages are quite low for somecategories of barriers. For example, in Scandinavia respondents did not raise anybarriers relating to political/cultural issues, product/quality, or conflicting priorities.
In general, financial constraints were by far the most regularly cited barrier to SPwith around a third of public sector organisations highlighting that sustainablyproduced products were (seen as) more expensive than competitor products andthat their budgets would not permit widening of SP practices (Min and Galle, 2001;
UK(%)
WesternEurope
(%)
EasternEurope
(%)Scandinavia
(%)
USA/Canada
(%)
Rest of theworld(%)
Allcountries
(%)
Financial 48.1 16.3 11.1 10.3 34.6 18.2 30.4Informational 12.3 12.2 5.6 6.9 7.7 9.1 9.9Legal 1.9 8.2 2.8 6.9 7.7 0.0 4.6Managerial/structural 21.7 8.2 2.8 3.4 5.8 9.1 11.7Political/cultural 5.7 8.2 2.8 0.0 5.8 18.2 5.7Product/quality 5.7 4.1 2.8 0.0 9.6 27.3 6.0Priority 8.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 4.2
Table IV.Perceived barriers toimplementing SP
IJOPM31,4
466
Rao and Holt, 2005). This finding affirms the first factor of the conceptual model.Two typical respondents from the UK and the Republic of Ireland highlighted that:
As a public funded organisation it is frequently difficult to put the business case to justify theadditional cost of purchasing the option that is preferred from a sustainable perspective (as thesustainable option usually carries a premium) (UK respondent).
While we award contracts that make sustainable products available, client Departmentschoose which products to draw from them. Cost factors play a role in that choice. Cost can be abarrier to selection of green options (Republic of Ireland respondent).
Another important barrier to SP related to informational issues. This corresponds withthe second factor in the conceptual framework, and the extent to which procurementpractitioners are familiar with policies (Cooper et al., 2000; Maignan et al., 2002).In addition, managerial/structural barriers are primarily concerned with the absenceof support from senior managers for SP (Bansal and Roth, 2000), affirming factor fourin the framework concerning organisational incentives/pressures. Implementing SPpolicies is often thwarted by the devolved form that procurement takes in many publicsector organisations. A local government procurer in Hungary commented that:
First of all, the main problem is the lack of information about the market opportunities and theback office personnel’s resistance in connection with it. We do not want to prescribe impossibleenvironmental conditions, because the tenderers cannot fulfil them, but if we want to prescribeenvironmental conditions as one of the valuation provisions (which can be the most effective),we shall have the appropriate information. We need to have a clear and transparent databaseabout goods produced by tenderers (materials used, manufacturing process, recyclingfacilities, life-cycle) (Hungarian respondent).
Similarly, a Swedish procurer from the transport sector pointed out that:
The top management has not issued explicit directives regarding sustainable development.Thus, people in charge of procurement do not have a clear “mandate” to introduce, e.g. ethicalcriteria which might entail increased overall costs. Hence, in order to get a higher focus onoverall sustainability, top management might have to become more dedicated to the so-called“triple bottom line” concept. Furthermore, purchasing is decentralised in the organisation. Thismakes it more difficult and time consuming to introduce “novelties” when it comes to long-termpurchasing strategies (Swedish respondent).
Some perceived barriers are disproportionately significant in certain regions. Forexample, concerns with product quality and the availability of sustainably producedalternatives (Norton, 1995) ranked relatively highly in the USA. This findingcorroborates the importance of factor three in the conceptual framework in certainregions, with regard to supplier availability/resistance.
Next, facilitators of engagement with SP are considered in Table V. The mostfrequently highlighted stimulant of SP practices were support for SP among anorganisation’s leadership, and the implementation of concrete strategies and plans withinwhich SP goals were articulated and enshrined. These facilitators affirm the fourth factorfrom the conceptual framework concerning organisational incentives/pressures (Bansaland Roth, 2000).
A further important facilitator was a supportive governmental/legislativeclimate, which will influence the second factor concerning familiarity with policies.
Sustainableprocurement
467
These sentiments are typified by the comments of this regional government procurer inthe USA who stated that:
Express upper management support, and develop of related goals by upper management thatspecifically relate to this type of activity. If there are no goals established by uppermanagement, the tendency is for using departments to gravitate toward price-only competitivecriteria (US respondent).
The importance of government and legislative support for SP is typified by thisresponse from a Maltese central government procurement professional:
It is one of Government’s top priorities and therefore support is forthcoming to facilitate SP inmy organisation (Maltese respondent).
The relationship between SP and barriers/facilitatorsThe final step of our analysis explores the relationships between barriers and enablers toengagement in SP through a regression analysis that distinguishes between the sixdimensions of SP identified in Table II. Our purpose is twofold. First, a multivariateanalysis provides a useful complement to the descriptive snapshot outlined above in thatit controls for other situational factors that might be correlated with regional influences.Second, the analysis allows us to evaluate the importance of barriers and facilitators forparticular elements of SP, and thereby provides insights into strategies to advance SP.This analysis is presented in Table VI, below. Models 1-6 each explore the influences onparticular elements of SP.
We considered organisation size (shown by number of employees) and geographicalregion on engagement with SP. In Models 1-6 there is no significant relationship betweenthe organisation size (number of employees) and engagement with aspects of SP,suggesting that size is no barrier to, or facilitator of, engagement with SP. Regardinggeographical region, we expected SP engagement to reflect local variation in publicpolicy climates (McCrudden, 2004). We found that having controlled forbarriers/facilitators, there are no significant differences in the levels of engagement inenvironmental aspects of SP across the regions in our study. This suggests, consistentwith our analysis of policy frameworks regarding SP, that environmental issues arecommonly part of SP frameworks across the world and are not a point of differentiationin countries’ policy environments.
UK(%)
WesternEurope
(%)
EasternEurope
(%)Scandinavia
(%)
USA/Canada
(%)
Restof theworld(%)
Allcountries
(%)
Knowledge/expertise 9.4 6.1 2.8 3.4 3.8 9.1 6.4Leadership 22.6 8.2 2.8 3.4 13.5 0.0 13.1Individual/personal commitment 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 6.0Legislation/government support 14.2 16.3 8.3 3.4 11.5 36.4 13.1Absence of a financial hurdle 5.7 0.0 2.8 3.4 11.5 0.0 4.9Presence of planning, strategiesand goal setting 17.0 6.1 5.6 3.4 3.8 36.4 10.6
Table V.Perceivedfacilitators of SP
IJOPM31,4
468
En
vir
onm
ent
Saf
ety
Div
ersi
tyH
um
anri
gh
tsP
hil
anth
rop
yS
ME
/Loc
alM
odel
1M
odel
2M
odel
3M
odel
4M
odel
5M
odel
6
Barr
iers
toS
PF
inan
cial
20.
203
(0.5
24)2
0.07
5(0
.255
)2
0707
**
*(0
.274
)2
0.48
9(0
.396
)2
0.55
7*
*(0
.241
)2
0.57
8*
**
(0.2
39)
Info
rmat
ion
al0.
306
(0.6
97)2
0.01
7(0
.340
)2
0.06
5(0
.365
)2
0.84
0(0
.529
)2
0.29
6(0
.333
)2
0.46
2(0
.319
)L
egal
21.
429
(0.9
66)2
0.90
2*
*(0
.471
)0.
147
(0.5
06)2
1.92
5*
**
(0.7
33)2
1.36
6*
**
(0.4
85)
20.
465
(0.4
42)
Man
ager
ial/
stru
ctu
ral
20.
669
(0.6
71)2
0.83
9*
**
(0.3
28)
0.00
8(0
.352
)2
0.99
3*
*(0
.509
)2
0.26
1(0
.308
)2
0.28
1(0
.307
)P
olit
ical
/cu
ltu
ral
21.
044
(0.9
25)
0.02
4(0
.452
)2
0.18
0(0
.486
)0.
118
(0.7
03)2
0.18
8(0
.426
)0.
292
(0.4
24)
Pro
du
ctq
ual
ity
20.
961
(0.9
11)2
0.25
9(0
.444
)2
0.36
6(0
.477
)2
1.22
7*
(0.6
90)2
0.20
9(0
.418
)2
0.03
5(0
.416
)P
rior
ity
20.
150
(1.0
47)2
0.09
5(0
.512
)0.
186
(0.5
50)
0.18
4(0
.796
)0.
011
(0.4
82)
20.
180
(0.4
80)
Faci
litato
rsof
SP
Kn
owle
dg
e/ex
per
tise
0.87
8(0
.856
)0.
513
(0.4
18)2
0.23
5(0
.449
)1.
135
*(0
.650
)0.
110
(0.3
95)
0.14
1(0
.392
)L
ead
ersh
ip1.
466
**
(0.6
28)
0.67
3*
*(0
.307
)0.
492
(0.3
29)
1.15
2*
*(0
.477
)0.
739
**
(0.2
92)
0.27
7(0
.287
)In
div
idu
alco
mm
itm
ent
0.07
1(0
.904
)0.
058
(0.4
42)2
0.38
6(0
.475
)2
0.56
6(0
.687
)0.
879
**
(0.4
19)
1.25
2*
**
(0.4
14)
Leg
isla
tion
/gov
ern
men
tsu
pp
ort
20.
194
(0.6
53)
0.39
5(0
.314
)0.
486
(0.3
37)
0.79
4(0
.488
)0.
260
(0.2
98)
0.44
3(0
.297
)A
bse
nce
offi
nan
cial
hu
rdle
20.
229
(1.0
45)
0.31
6(0
.482
)0.
567
(0.5
18)
1.01
0(0
.749
)0.
329
(0.4
54)
0.58
1(0
.452
)P
rese
nce
ofp
lan
nin
g/g
oal
sett
ing
2.47
5*
**
(0.6
94)
0.58
6*
(0.3
39)
0.09
3(0
.364
)0.
904
*(0
.527
)0.
126
(0.3
21)
0.62
1*
*(0
.318
)P
rod
uct
sup
pli
erav
aila
bil
ity
21.
281
(1.9
58)2
0.32
5(0
.956
)0.
182
(1.0
26)2
2.95
3*
*(1
.485
)2
0.70
7(0
.899
)0.
519
(0.8
95)
Rew
ard
s/re
cog
nit
ion
1.98
1(2
.402
)2
0.02
2(1
.174
)2
0.29
5(1
.261
)2
1.70
1(1
.826
)2
0.12
2(1
.105
)0.
966
(1.1
00)
Con
trol
vari
abl
esC
onst
ant
14.1
28*
**
(0.8
09)
6.60
2*
**
(0.3
99)
4.93
7*
**
(0.4
24)
8.64
1*
**
(0.6
17)
4.97
1*
**
(0.3
72)
7.81
8*
**
(0.3
69)
No.
ofem
plo
yee
s2
0.12
8(0
.118
)0.
006
(0.0
58)2
0.00
4(0
.062
)2
0.00
7(0
.090
)0.
031
(0.0
54)
20.
018
(0.0
54)
Wes
tern
Eu
rop
e0.
382
(0.6
25)2
0.65
7*
*(0
.304
)2
0.69
6*
*(0
.326
)2
1.12
0*
*(0
.474
)2
0.27
3(0
.286
)2
0.73
4*
**
(0.2
83)
Eas
tern
Eu
rop
e0.
978
(0.7
22)
0.10
9(0
.354
)0.
182
(0.3
77)2
0.24
0(0
.549
)0.
563
*(0
.335
)2
0.98
2*
**
(0.3
29)
Sca
nd
inav
ia0.
197
(0.7
34)2
0.87
5*
*(0
.363
)2
1.10
1*
**
(0.3
86)2
1.91
4*
**
(0.5
58)2
1.53
8*
**
(0.3
40)
21.
206
**
*(0
.337
)U
SA
/Can
ada
20.
343
(0.6
27)2
0.61
3*
*(0
.299
)1.
959
**
*(0
.321
)2
0.67
8(0
.464
)0.
353
(0.2
84)
20.
033
(0.2
80)
Res
tof
the
wor
ld2
1.46
7(1
.101
)2
0.97
5*
(0.5
38)
0.98
2*
(0.5
78)2
0.75
6(0
.836
)0.
128
(0.5
06)
0.28
4(0
.504
)R
2(%
)12
.813
.326
.517
.219
.817
.4R
2ad
just
ed(%
)5
36.
020
.410
.313
.010
.5N
o.of
obse
rvat
ion
s26
627
027
227
026
827
2
Notes:
Sig
nifi
can
cele
vel
s:* p
,0.
05,
** p
,0.
01,
**
* p,
0.00
1;fi
gu
res
inp
aren
thes
esar
est
and
ard
erro
rs
Table VI.The relationships
between engagementin aspects of SP
and perceivedbarriers/facilitators
Sustainableprocurement
469
There is, however, significant variation across regions in other aspects of SP. Forexample, regarding safety issues, Western Europe, Scandinavia, and the USA/Canadaall score significantly lower than the UK ( p , 0.005 in all cases), while the USA/Canadaand the rest of the world score significantly more highly on engagement with diversityissues ( p , 0.001 and p , 0.01, respectively). Human rights-related aspects of SP aresignificantly lower in Scandinavia and Western Europe than elsewhere ( p , 0.001 andp , 0.005, respectively), while procurement from local and small businesses is lessprevalent in Western and Eastern Europe and Scandinavia than elsewhere ( p , 0.001 inall cases). These differences largely confirm the importance of regional influences onorganisational engagement with SP.
Turning to the importance of barriers and facilitators in shaping engagement withSP, our analysis suggests that these play a very important role in shaping SP practices.Leadership at the organisational level is found to be the most important facilitator ofengagement with SP (Bansal and Roth, 2000), particularly for environmental, humanrights, philanthropic, and safety issues ( p , 0.005 in all cases). Individual commitmentwas also found to play an important role (Drumwright, 1994), especially in morediscretionary aspects of SP, such as philanthropy and procurement from small and localbusinesses ( p , 0.005 and p , 0.001). Finance presents the major barrier (Min andGalle, 2001) to embedding diversity in procurement ( p , 0.001), whereas the presence ofplanning/goals greatly facilitates engagement with environmental issues in purchasing( p , 0.001), and a lack of quality products (Norton, 1995) has a particular impact onpublic sector organisations’ ability to integrate human rights issues ( p , 0.005).Interestingly, our analysis indicates that legal barriers to engagement with SP play animportant role in shaping involvement with safety, human rights and philanthropicaspects of SP ( p , 0.005, p , 0.001, and p , 0.001, respectively). This suggests thatremoving legal barriers, perhaps by offering greater advice on the interpretation ofprocurement directives, could enable greater engagement with SP. Finally, some of theinsignificant findings are suggestive. For example, we identified almost no significantrole for information or knowledge/expertise in shaping involvement with SP, suggestingthat awareness, or a lack of it (Cooper et al., 2000; Maignan et al., 2002), is not playing animportant role in holding back participating organisations’ SP practices.
DiscussionIn this paper, we provide the first systematic large-scale international study of SPpractices. Our findings confirm earlier suggestions that some governments are usingtheir purchasing power to further social and environmental policy goals (McCrudden,2004). Regarding within-region variation, we identify a set of factors that affect SPactivities.
Regarding the overall levels of engagement with SP, environmental aspects of SP arenot the most prominent among sample organisations, which is perhaps surprising giventheir significance in most national policy frameworks. Instead, buying from small andlocal businesses and aspects concerned with sustainable labour and safety practices aremost widely implemented. This finding may reflect the relative applicability of the socialand economic aspects of SP to the broader public sector agenda. The relatively strongfocus on procurement from small and local businesses may also suggest “favouritism” inprocurement that has been associated with inefficiency in prior research (Vagstad, 1995;Brulhart and Trionfetti, 2004).
IJOPM31,4
470
The substantial variation in SP across regions suggests, consistent with ourconceptual framework, that national and international SP policy environments are aprimary determinant of the extent to which public sector organisations engage in SP.Where SP policy and legislation exists, it appears to be widely implemented. However,where directives are more voluntary in character, competing necessities and prioritiesoften dominate. For example, the imperative to stimulate competition and efficiency bywidely tendering within the EU often competes, or is inconsistent, with the goal ofwidening participation in SP. SP activities also often fall foul of tight departmentalbudgets where there is a perception that sustainability will raise costs. Additionally,legal barriers were perceived as constraining involvement in SP. Governments need toprovide clear legislative and regulatory support for sustainability in decentralisedpublic sector organisations (Lundqvist, 2001), and sufficient budgetary flexibility tomake investments in SP that may be financially efficient only when viewed from along-term perspective, which is challenging given governmental terms of office.
Variation in policy frameworks is only part of the picture concerning the stimuli forSP. Our research highlights a range of factors that influence public sector bodies’engagement with SP. These include leadership support for SP (Bansal and Roth, 2000),not paying a premium for sustainable products (Min and Galle, 2001), and alegislative/regulatory environment that is explicitly supportive of sustainabilitydirectives upon compliance among procurement professionals in the EU (Geldermanet al., 2006). The personal commitment of procurement professionals helped SPengagement (Drumwright, 1994), as did training. Neither a lack of supplier availability,nor knowledge/awareness issues affected engagement with SP, which contrasts withexisting research (Preuss, 2009).
Our study provided broad confirmatory evidence for our conceptual framework. Forexample, some of the most important ways in which engagement with SP varies acrossregions mirror variations in underlying policies, and evidence also supported the broadimportance of leadership and financial resourcing for engagement with SP. At the sametime, we found comparatively little support for information/awareness (Cooper et al., 2000;Maignan et al., 2002) or lack of product availability (Norton, 1995) influencing SP. Severalfactors that featured less prominently both in our original model and in prior researchemerged as important considerations in our analysis. Chief among these was the role ofincluding SP within formal planning and strategy processes in order that it is properlyimplemented. These observations are suggestive of an enriched conceptualisation of thedrivers of SP implementation that could inform future research directions.
The study suffers from a number of limitations that future work might seek toremedy. First, the questionnaire was piloted with ten senior UK public sector procurers,while ideally we would have like to pilot it with an international group. The UK pilots ledus to add the SME/local dimension which could have been a parochial view of SP, yet itproved fruitful as it was a significant aspect of SP for Scandinavia, Western and EasternEurope.
Inherent in the survey method is the fact that the respondents are volunteers andhence may to some degree be more interested in or engaged with SP than other publicsector procurers. Also, the questionnaire was not translated and only completed byprocurers who spoke English, which will further skew the sample. Associated with thislimitation is the observation that our sample encompasses the regions of the world in anuneven way, with significant numbers of participants in some areas (e.g. the UK, Europe,
Sustainableprocurement
471
the USA) and fewer in other areas (South America, Australasia, Asia). The survey alsocategorized respondents as from general public services, health, education, justice,and an “other” category. This “other” category included the 24.6 per cent of respondentsfrom 12 other public sector bodies including housing, defence, social affairs, transport,spatial planning, etc. Clearly this “other” category contained too varied a group ofrespondents for meaningful observations, and a larger sample would have allowed us amore fine grained analysis of other parts of the public sector.
Further, the analysis is cross-sectional and therefore provides only a snapshot of SPpractice in the organisations studied. Future work that extends the analysis toincorporate a longitudinal analysis of changing SP practice and which was able tosample those areas that are under-represented in our sample, would add considerablyour understanding of embedding SP practices in public sector organisations.
ConclusionGovernments around the world have sought to address the challenges of sustainabledevelopment by leveraging their influence as major procurers of good and services. Inthis study, we have provided the first comprehensive overview of how public bodiesinternationally are implementing SP and of the factors that shape the engagement oforganisations with SP. Our analysis shows that while most public sector organisationsare embedding some sustainability criteria in their procurement, some areas ofsustainability are relatively neglected and there is wide variation across regions in theoverall extent and nature of involvement with SP.
Our research has several managerial and policy implications. First, leadership is asignificant factor in SP being implemented by public sector organisations, and if seniormanagers are supportive of sustainability and incorporate SP into planning, strategiesand goal setting, then the purchasing team will implement SP. Financial concerns stillremain the biggest barrier to SP, with public sector procurers resistant to paying more tobuy sustainably. Across regions, environmental aspects of SP are relatively establishedbut there is variation in other aspects of SP such as buying from diverse suppliers,supporting human rights and ensuring safe practices in the supply chain. Ifgovernmental policy and legislation is supportive of SP, public sector organisations aremore likely to implement SP. Policy makers need to be mindful of the emphasis theyplace on the various aspects of SP, as different interpretations are apparent in differentcountries, and there is no right way to approach SP. Internationally, sustainabilitypractices are changing apace, and sharing learning across regions will benefit all.
References
Afonso, A., Schuknecht, L. and Tanzi, V. (2005), “Public sector efficiency: an internationalcomparison”, Public Choice, Vol. 123 Nos 3/4, pp. 321-47.
Aho, E., Cornu, J., Georghiu, L. and Subira, A. (2006), “Creating an innovative Europe”,Aho Group Report, European Communities, Belgium.
Alreck, P. and Settle, R. (1985), Survey Research Handbook, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Aschhoff, B. and Sofka, W. (2008), “Innovation on demand – can public procurement drivemarket success of innovations?”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 1235-47.
Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000), “Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 717-36.
IJOPM31,4
472
Bovaird, T. (2006), “Developing new forms of partnership with the ‘market’ in the procurement ofpublic services”, Public Administration, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 81-102.
Brulhart, M. and Trionfetti, F. (2004), “Public expenditure, international specialisation andagglomeration”, European Economic Review, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 851-81.
Bull, G., Nilsson, S., Williams, J., Rametsteiner, E., Hammett, T. and Mabee, W. (2001), “Woodprocurement policy: an analysis of critical issues and stakeholders”, Forestry Chronicle,Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 325-40.
Carter, C. (2000), “Ethical issues in international buyer-supplier relationships: a dyadicexamination”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 191-208.
Carter, C. (2005), “Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance: the key mediating rolesof organizational learning and supplier performance”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, p. 177.
Carter, C. and Carter, J. (1998), “Interorganizational determinants of environmental purchasing:initial evidence from the consumer products industries”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3,pp. 659-84.
Carter, C. and Jennings, M. (2002), “Social responsibility and supply chain relationships”,Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 38 No. 1,pp. 37-52.
Carter, C. and Jennings, M. (2004), “The role of purchasing in corporate social responsibility:a structural equation analysis”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 145-86.
Carter, C., Auskalnis, R. and Ketchum, C. (1999), “Purchasing from minority business enterprises:key success factors”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 28-32.
Coggburn, J.D. (2004), “Achieving managerial values through green procurement?”,Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 236-58.
Cooper, R., Frank, G. and Kemp, R. (2000), “A multinational comparison of key ethical issues, helpsand challenges in the purchasing & supply management profession: the key implications forbusiness and the professions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 83-100.
DEFRA (2005), Sustainable Development Strategy, DEFRA, London.
DEFRA (2006), Procuring the Future – The Sustainable Procurement Task Force National ActionPlan, DEFRA, London.
DEFRA (2007), Securing the Future: UK Government Sustainable Procurement Action PlanIncorporating the Government Response to the Report of the Sustainable Procurement TaskForce, DEFRA, London.
Department of Trade and Industry South Africa (2003), South Africa’s EconomicTransformation: A Strategy for Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment,Department of Trade and Industry South Africa, Cape Town.
Drumwright, M. (1994), “Socially responsible organisational buying: environmental concern as anon-economic buying criteria”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 1-19.
Edler, J. and Georghiou, L. (2007), “Public procurement and innovation – resurrecting thedemand side”, Research Policy, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 949-63.
Erridge, A. and Henningan, S. (2007), “Public procurement and social policy in Northern Ireland:the unemployment pilot project”, in Piga, G. and Thai, K.V. (Eds), Advancing PublicProcurement: Practices, Innovation and Knowledge-Sharing, PrAcademics Press,Boca Raton, FL, pp. 280-303.
European Coalition for Corporate Justice (2007), Sustainable Procurement in the European UnionProposals and Recommendations to the European Commission and the EuropeanParliament, European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Brussels.
Sustainableprocurement
473
European Commission (2005a), “Green public procurement”, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/gpp/background.htm#public
European Commission (2005b), “Small and Medium Enterprises: SME Definition”, Enterpriseand Industry, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2006), Handbook on Green Public Procurement, European Commission,Brussels.
Faith-Ell, C., Balfors, B. and Folkeson, L. (2006), “The application of environmental requirementsin Swedish road maintenance contracts”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 163-71.
Gelderman, C.J., Ghijsen, P.W. and Brugman, M.J. (2006), “Public procurement and EU tenderingdirectives – explaining non-compliance”, International Journal of Public SectorManagement, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 702-14.
Gershon, P. (2004), Releasing Resources to the Front Line: Independent Review of Public SectorEfficiency, HM Treasury, London.
Gonzalez-Padron, T., Hult, G. and Calantone, R. (2008), “Exploiting innovative opportunities inglobal purchasing: an assessment of ethical climate and relationship performance”,Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37, pp. 69-82.
Graafland, J.J. (2002), “Sourcing ethics in the textile sector: the case of C&A”, Business Ethics:A European Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 282-94.
Gunther, E. and Scheibe, L. (2006), “The hurdle analysis: a self-evaluation tool for municipalitiesto identify, analyse and overcome hurdles to green procurement”, Corporate SocialResponsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 13, pp. 61-77.
Hall, M. and Purchase, D. (2006), “Building or bodging? Attitudes to sustainability in UK publicsector housing construction development”, SustainableDevelopment, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 205-18.
Hartshorn, J., Maher, M., Crooks, J., Stahl, R. and Bond, Z. (2005), “Creative destruction: buildingtoward sustainability”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 170-80.
Heckathorn, D.D. (2002), “Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid estimates fromchain-referral samples of hidden populations”, Social Problems, Vol. 49, pp. 11-34.
HM Treasury (2000), “Government accounting 2000”, available at: www.Government-accounting.gov.uk
Jayaraman, V., Klassen, R. and Linton, J.D. (2007), “Supply chain management in a sustainableenvironment”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1071-4.
Kalton, G. and Anderson, D.W. (1986), “Sampling rare populations”, Journal of the RoyalStatistical Society, Vol. 149, pp. 65-82.
Krause, D.R., Ragatz, G.L. and Hughley, S. (1999), “Supplier development from the minoritysupplier’s perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 33-41.
Kunzlik, P. (2003), “Making the market work for the environment: acceptance of (some) ‘green’contract award criteria in public procurement”, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 175-201.
Laffont, J.-J. and Tirole, J. (1991), “Auction design and favoritism”, International Journal ofIndustrial Organization, Vol. 9, pp. 9-42.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as a supply chain management issue”,British Journal of Management, Vol. 7, pp. S45-S62.
Lundqvist, L.J. (2001), “Implementation from above: the ecology of power in Sweden’senvironmental governance”, Governance – An International Journal of Policy andAdministration, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 319-37.
IJOPM31,4
474
McCrudden, C. (2004), “Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes”, Natural ResourcesForum, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 257-67.
Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B. and McAlister, D. (2002), “Managing socially-responsible buying: howto integrate noneconomic criteria into the purchasing process”, European ManagementJournal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 641-8.
Mamic, I. (2005), “Managing global supply chain: the sports footwear, apparel and retail sectors”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 81-100.
Matthews, D. and Axelrod, S. (2004), “Whole life considerations in IT procurement”,International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 344-8.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of US firms”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1222-38.
Norton, B. (1995), “Evaluating ecosystem states: two competing paradigms”, EcologicalEconomics, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 113-27.
O’Brien, C. (1999), “Sustainable production – a new paradigm for a new millennium”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vols 60/61 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
OECD (2009), OECD in Figures, OECD, Paris.
Porter, M.E. and van de Linde, C. (1995), “Green and competitive”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-34.
Prajogo, D.I., McDermott, P. and Goh, M. (2008), “Impact of value chain activities on quality andinnovation”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 7,pp. 615-35.
Preuss, L. (2009), “Addressing sustainable development through public procurement: the case oflocal government”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, p. 213.
Rao, P. and Holt, D. (2005), “Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economicperformance?”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25Nos 9/10, pp. 898-916.
Rimmington, M., Smith, J.C. and Hawkins, R. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility andsustainable food procurement”, British Food Journal, Vol. 108 Nos 10/11, pp. 824-37.
Salganik, M. and Heckathorn, D. (2004), “Sampling and estimation in hidden populations usingrespondent-driven sampling”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 34, pp. 193-239.
Snell, P. (2006), “Struggle with sustainability”, Supply Management, 16 November, News section.
Srivastava, S.K. (2007), “Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review”,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Steurer, R., Berger, G., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi, A. (2007), “Sustainable public procurement inEU member states: overview of government initiatives and selected cases”, Final Report tothe EU High-Level Group on CSR, European Commission, Brussels.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Proceduresand Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994), “Grounded theory methodology: an overview”, in Denzin, N.K.and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, London, pp. 1-18.
Swanson, M., Weissman, A., Davis, G., Socolof, M.L. and Davis, K. (2005), “Developing prioritiesfor greener state government purchasing: a California case study”, Journal of CleanerProduction, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 669-77.
Sustainableprocurement
475
Thai, K.V. (2001), “Public procurement re-examined”, Journal of Public Procurement, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 9-50.
Thomson, J. and Jackson, T. (2007), “Sustainable procurement in practice: lessons from localgovernment”, Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 421-44.
Tigner, B. (1991), “EC policy: opening the bidding”, International Management (Europe Edition),Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 46-9.
Trionfetti, F. (2000), “Discriminatory public procurement and international trade”,World Economy, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 57-76.
Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. (2010), “Understanding the innovation impacts of publicprocurement”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 123-43.
Vachon, S. and Klassen, R. (2006), “Extending green practices across the supply chain: the impactof upstream and downstream integration”, International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 795-821.
Vagstad, S. (1995), “Promoting fair competition in public procurement”, Journal of PublicEconomics, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 283-307.
Walker, H. and Brammer, S. (2009), “Sustainable procurement in the UK public sector”,Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 127-38.
Walker, H., Essig, M., Kivisto, T. and Schotanus, F. (2007), “Co-operative purchasing in the publicsector”, in Knight, L.A., Harland, C.M., Telgen, J., Callender, G., Thai, K.V. andMcKen, K.E. (Eds), Public Procurement: International Cases and Commentary, Routledge,London, pp. 325-42.
Weiss, L. and Thurbon, E. (2006), “The business of buying American: public procurement astrade strategy in the USA”, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 13 No. 5,pp. 701-24.
Wood, G. (1995), “Ethics in purchasing: the practitioner’s experience”, Business Ethics:A European Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 95-101.
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performanceamong early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinesemanufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-89.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Geng, Y. (2005), “Green supply chain management in China: pressures,practices and performance”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 25, pp. 449-68.
About the authorsStephen Brammer is Professor of Strategic Management at Warwick Business School. Hisresearch addresses the links between organisational strategy and social responsibility, with afocus on how organisations build effective relationships with stakeholders including employees,communities, and suppliers. Stephen Brammer is the corresponding author and can be contactedat: [email protected]
Helen Walker is Professor of Logistics and Operations Management at Cardiff Business School.Current research activities include investigating SP in the public and private sectors. She sat on thecross-government SP Task Force and is a member of the CIPS Sustainable/ResponsibleProcurement Group.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
IJOPM31,4
476