Integrating sustainability standards into public procurement process : a comparative analysis between Germany and Viet nam

(1)

Master

Reference

Integrating sustainability standards into public procurement process : a comparative analysis between Germany and Viet nam

LAMBERT, Siti Rubiah

Abstract

Integrating sustainability standards into public procurement process - a comparative analysis between Germany and Viet Nam

LAMBERT, Siti Rubiah. Integrating sustainability standards into public procurement process : a comparative analysis between Germany and Viet nam. Master : Univ.

Genève, 2020

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:132372

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

(2)

Integrating Sustainability Standards into Public Procurement Process

A comparative analysis between Germany and Viet Nam

Submitted by LAMBERT, Siti Rubiah

Under the supervision of:

Professor Reinhard Weissinger University of Geneva / ISO Geneva School of Social Sciences Second Reader:

Santiago FernandezdeCordoba Senior Economist/ Trade Expert

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

I certify that the work presented here is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original and the result of my own investigations, except as acknowledged, and has not been submitted, either in part or whole, for a degree at this or any other University.

7 January 2020

(3)

Introduction

“If the world continues to consume as many resources as it currently does, we would need two planets. This shows that we urgently need to change course. Public Procurement is an important

tool. In Germany alone, the public sector buys products and services valued around 300 billion euros, if we align these public investments with sustainability criteria in Germany and around the world, we will take a major step forward towards a more social and ecological world. The state is

a role model in the area of public procurement and has the ability to develop new markets through its buyer power and to help innovative products achieve breakthroughs. In Germany, we

can do much more and, as the Federal Government, we can lead the way. We are already well positioned in certain areas such as timber and energy-efficient devices; in other areas, however, there is still room for improvement, for example as regards the demand for recycled materials.”

Rita Schwarzelühr-Sutter¹, Parliamentary State Secretary, German Federal Environment Ministry.

The share of public procurement represents on average, 12% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in OECD countries (OECD, 2017). In Europe alone, it was estimated that almost €1,8 trillion is spent on public procurement on an annual basis, which is about 14% of European Union (EU) GDP (EU, 2016). The estimation for developing countries seem to count even higher: up to 30% of the GDP (UNEP, 2012a). The magnitude of such spending and the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production is aggravating poverty, environmental deterioration and imbalances can be considered as one of the most cited reasons why Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) is needed. A 1% saving in procurement expenditure might represent EUR43 billion per year in OECD countries (OECD, 2017).

Essentially, governments can use public procurement as a political vehicle to drive broader policy objectives such as ensuring that public procurement laws, processes and practices are aligned to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The main objective of this paper is particularly focused on the dynamics of sustainability standards as an instrument that could potentially drive effectiveness when integrated in SPP policy. This would address the perceived burden directed towards sustainability standards which includes the confusion around the multiplicity of standards that currently exist, an additional bureaucratic red tape to the whole procurement process, higher costs and the lack of goods in compliance to sustainability standards that may hinder SPP activities.

In order to do so, a comparative analysis on the maturity of SPP between two countries- Germany and Viet Nam will provide a broader perspective of the countries’ public procurement state-of-the-art, thus discussing the maturity of SPP in each of these countries. The intention of understanding the maturity of SPP is mainly to elucidate how it affects the integration of sustainability standards in the procurement process, namely the promotion for the use of sustainability standards. Thus, addressing the research question: How does the maturity of SPP affect the integration of sustainability standards in public procurement process?

1Statement of Rita Schwarzelühr-Sutter at the 2018 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

“Transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies”.

(5)

Case Selection

Germany and Viet Nam have been selected as a way to illustrate a balanced representation between a developed and developing nation-state, Germany being part of the EU confirms their strong alliance with the EU GPP framework whereas, Viet Nam is part of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which has not established any intergovernmental approaches for SPP. It is equally important to note that both countries have implemented SPP initiatives one way or another, which makes the maturity of SPP analysis feasible.

Note: While a study based on only two countries may not be representative to conclude with good practices applicable for all countries, it will however provide a preliminary approach to the integration of sustainability standards in public procurement process through the understanding of the maturity of SPP in a given country.

Methodology

This study is predominantly based on literature reviews. The findings are entirely obtained by analysing existing documents, including legal documents, scientific journals, and project reports relating to public procurement and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Online tools were also used to provide certain data:

• the International Trade Centre (ITC) ‘Sustainability Map’ have also been utilised to provide market trends and VSS landscape;

• the German ‘Sustainability Compass’ to have a clearer perspective on how sustainability standards are integrated into the public procurement system. Unfortunately, the most part of the website is not available in English and the same for the Vietnamese procurement portal.

• Opentender.eu provides a snapshot of product and services sector that are significant to the public procurement in a given European country

• eCertis is an online database listing the eligibility criteria and documentary evidence needed in each European Economic Area (EEA) country for companies to take part in public procurement.

Limitations

Published articles in relation to sustainable public procurement in developing countries (even in developed countries) tend to be limited given this relatively new concept. Thus, for the case of Viet Nam, most of the references tend to be reports published by project implementing organizations, if not donor organizations. This may question the impartiality of the findings. Obtaining raw data on the uptake of sustainability standards or the use of sustainability criteria from sustainability standards have also been a challenge given the monitoring implications of SPP which has not been profound up until today, not even in a developed country like Germany which will be discussed in the case study.

Structure of the paper

The first chapter of this paper will be focused on the definition and complexities of sustainability standards i.e. terminology clarity and market dynamics, especially in relation to the growing influence of Voluntary Sustainability standards (VSS).

This will then set a clearer understanding as to how these standards would work in public policy settings, which will be discussed in the second chapter, along with the definition and complexities of the whole concept around Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP).

(6)

As part of the public policy component, the different international sustainable public procurement initiatives/ standards such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendation of the Council of Public Procurement, the World Bank Sustainable Procurement Guidance, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), the EU Green Public Procurement (GPP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 10 Year Framework of Programmes (YFP) SPP Programme and the ISO 20400:2017 Sustainable Procurement Guidance will also be discussed in this section to showcase the different frameworks that governments can adopt. Essentially the EU GPP will be referenced against Germany’s Public Procurement system and the UNEP 10YFP SPP will be referenced against Viet Nam’s system.

The third chapter is the analytical component. The maturity of SPP analysis will be adapted from the criteria identified by UNEP (2012a) on the ‘Maturity levels for Sustainable Public Procurement’ with 6 key elements: i) Political Willingness; ii) Adoption of a global strategy; iii) knowledge of SPP; iv) Legal Framework; v) Monitoring and; vi) Market readiness. Having these elements as criteria will enable a more structured comparative analysis between the two countries.

While the initial idea was to conduct a rating score between ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ levels of SPP maturity based on the criteria above, there was, however no measurable indicators available. A request was then sent to the project manager of this publication in UNEP but was told that there was none developed at this point in time.

From the analysis, the evaluation will then be discussed in the fourth chapter, linking the comparative analysis on the maturity of SPP in each country to its integration dynamics of sustainability standards or sustainability criteria in the procurement processes. This chapter will discuss the promotion of sustainability standards for SPP through two key factors: political and socio-economic as they can be perceived as the potential pull factor towards internalising the use of sustainability standards in public procurement.

Comparative Analysis:

Maturity of SPP based on the UNEP (2012a) 6 identified criteria

Comparative Evaluation:

Usages of Sustainability Standards in procurement process

(7)

1. Sustainability Standards

While different stakeholders would define ‘sustainability’ differently, the most commonly used definition would be that sustainability is effectively the goal of ‘Sustainable Development’, in which the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report), has defined it as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Cassen, 1987).

In 2015, all the United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which has provided a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an urgent call for action by all countries – developed and developing – in a global partnership framework (more details about the SDGs and SPP in Chapter 2.1).

Sustainability encompasses three dimensions (economic, environmental and social) and these dimensions are typically interdependent and can be mutually reinforcing. The environment sets the natural limits to the social system, which is made up of human institutions and individuals. The economy, as port of the social system, includes the consumption of resources, employment, meeting the needs of populations, income, and the distribution and use of products.

Sustainability standards provide criteria that should guarantee the products purchased do not hurt the environment and the people that make them. These standards are considered market-based tools that are meant to transform production, global supply chains and consumption patterns to be more sustainable.

Sustainability standards have also been referred to as ‘trade-related sustainability assurance schemes’

by the European Commission, as a communication vehicle to recognize its support for sustainable development through their purchasing decisions (EC, 2009). In addition, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes international trade as an engine for economic growth and an important means to achieve the SDGs (Bellmann & Tipping, 2015) and that sustainability standards offer explicit strategies to link trade with better practices (ITC, 2019).

Proliferation of Sustainability Standards in the commodities market

Currently, there are more than 400 of such standards across the globe and they are no longer a novelty serving the niche market (ITC, 2019). Over the past decade and more, they have increasingly found their way into the mainstream markets- see Figure 1 on the proliferation of standards over time, especially in 2007. For some producers and suppliers, adopting a set of recognized principles for sustainable practices represents a steppingstone to implementing best practices within supply chains.

For others, compliance with a given standard may offer a strategy for managing reputational risks or even supply risks (ITC, 2019). The Sustainability Map² currently covers 241 sustainability standards applicable to more than 80 sectors and 180 countries, which contains public and private standards as well as domestic and transnational programmes.

2 The Sustainability Map database is an inventory of VSS, including a wide range of programs and organizations in the field of sustainable production and trade - www.sustainabilitymap.org

(8)

Figure 1: UNFSS (2018) – Proliferation of sustainability standards over time

As of today, these standards have certified at least 17.9 million hectares of eight agricultural commodities³ that were analysed: bananas, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, soybeans, sugarcane and tea and the they are continuing to grow. The certified area of the 8 selected crops grew 59.4% in 2013-2016 and 18% in 2016-2017 (ibid.).

Figure 2: Extracted from ITC (2019) – Selected products certified by sustainability standards (minimum possible), 2008-2017.

3 These commodities are not limited to public procurement purchases. This illustration serves to prove the mainstreaming of certified agricultural commodities in the global market.

(9)

When translating the certified area to the share of the standards used, sustainability standards have expanded by double digits in 2013-2017. Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and Round Table on Responsible Soy were reported with the most growth (ibid.).

Table 1: Extracted from ITC (2019)– Selected sustainability standards growth indicators⁴.

1.1 Definitions

From a very simplistic view, one can derive to the understanding of sustainability standard as a standard that incorporates social and environmental requirements to reduce the negative impacts of global economic activity on the society and the environment. Besides the term sustainability standard, label, ecolabel or certification are also widely used. The World Bank for example, differentiates the labels between Eco-Label and Social-Label as the former focuses on the environment and the latter focuses on social standard.

Figure 3: World Bank (2019) – Examples of eco/social labels

Moreover, experts also distinguish between ‘standards’ and ‘schemes’. The German Sustainability Compass⁵ for example, defines ‘standards’ as the document in which the requirements are specified and a ‘scheme’ additionally comprises the underlying assurance system.

4 These standards are not limited to public procurement uptake. This illustration serves to prove the mainstreaming of sustainability standards in the global market.

5 An online procurement tool: https://www.kompass-nachhaltigkeit.de

(10)

The concept of “scheme” is broader than that of “standard”. While standards are incorporated in schemes as requirements or test methods, schemes define i.e. the frequency of audits, which areas are audited, who audits and who evaluates the audit results before issuing a certificate.

That said, the definition of a Conformity Assessment (CA) scheme on the other hand is “Set of rules and procedures that describes the objects of conformity assessment, identifies the specified requirements and provides the methodology for performing conformity assessment.” (ISO/IEC 17000, 2004) The CA scheme defines i) the object being assessed; ii) the requirements or criteria applied in the assessment and; iii) the process or procedures that are followed in the assessment. A scheme is generally owned by a scheme owner, which can be a Conformity Assessment Body (CAB), a governmental agency, an industry or trade association, an international organization etc.

While it may be hard to pin down the best term to use, this paper will instead use ‘sustainability standards’ to represent all that is involved under the entire standard system, unless mentioned otherwise. This is to avoid confusion, including the complexities that will be discussed in this section.

It is important to understand that the basis of this discussion is ‘sustainability’ in terms of standard compliance and at this juncture, regardless of which term is used, the main purpose of sustainability standards is that it incorporates the social, environmental and economic value of sustainable development.

1.1.1 Standard

Standards are documents that provide requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics used to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are consistently fit for their purposes⁶. The World Trade Organization (WTO) definition of a standard is illustrated in the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) as a ‘Document approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes and production methods, with which compliance is not mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product, process or production method’.⁷

1.2 Sustainability Standards Terminology

The term ‘sustainability standards’ does not seem to have a single, widely recognized definition. This is not surprising, given the great variety of NGO initiatives, industry programs, and corporate codes of conduct that are commonly subsumed under the label ‘VSS’. From an analytical perspective, this lack of clarity is highly problematic because it leads to a concept stretching and blurring the lines between sometimes very different empirical phenomena (UNFSS, 2018). The general feature of sustainability standards in a nutshell promotes the objectives of sustainable development by including social and environmental considerations in the underlying economic focus on business (UNFSS, 2013).

6 ISO, Standards, available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm, retrieved: 19 December 2019.

7 WTO, TBT Annex 1, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#annexI retrieved: 19 December 2019.

(11)

Thus, for the purpose of this study, ‘sustainability standards could be defined as the following working definition: Standards are typically voluntary instruments that address products, processes, systems, services etc. and are typically developed by consensus. The legal status of standards as voluntary instruments can change e.g. through incorporation into public technical regulations or private contracts. Sustainability standards are standards whose explicit objectives are the promotion of one or more of the three pillars of sustainability.’ This definition combines the WTO definition of standards being ‘not mandatory’ and the generic definition of standards development by consensus. It also incorporates its potential use as a legal instrument where sustainability criteria are concerned.

Voluntary Sustainability standards (VSS) on the other hand has been defined explicitly as ‘standards that specifies requirements that producers, traders, manufacturers, retailers or service providers may be asked to meet, relating to a wide range of sustainability metrics, including respect for basic human rights, workers’ health and safety, environmental impacts, community relations, land-use planning and others’ (UNFSS, 2013). However, this definition also applies in most of the other cases in sustainability standards.

The distinction between VSS and sustainability standards is therefore; VSS may be developed by individual businesses, business associations, environmental or social non-governmental organizations or governments, or through multi-stakeholder initiatives that attempt to balance the interests of a range of interested parties and stakeholders (UNFSS, 2013), while there are also other types of sustainability standards that may be developed by public bodies i.e. the German Blue Angel and also in reference to other international Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) such as International Organization of Standardization (ISO), standards are namely developed through national members.

The International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL) Alliance⁸ grouped these VSS and termed them as ‘standard systems’ to describe the collective of organizations responsible for the activities involved in the implementation of a sustainability standard, including standard-setting, capacity building, assurance, labelling and monitoring and evaluation (UNFSS, 2018; ISEAL Credibility Principles, 2013).

Figure 4: UNFSS (2018) – Voluntary standards as a new regulatory form, adapted from Bartley (2010).

8 The ISEAL Alliance – a London based umbrella organization of leading VSS programs.

(12)

Based on this, four major attributes have been identified as a VSS system (UNFSS, 2018):

i) they are discernible standard-setting and implementation system;

ii) they are led by private actors (NGOs and/or firms);

iii) they are not corporate codes of conducts (i.e. firm-level programmes) and

iv) they use information (typically certification/ labelling) to create market incentives for sustainable production.

VSS are thus, conceptualized as a new regulatory form, situated in the intersection of market-based instruments, regulation by information, and voluntary private governance (UNFSS, 2018) – refer to figure 4.

While there are many other types of Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Codex Alimentarius Commission, ASTM International as well as the regional standards organizations (a very exhaustive list), the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) for example, develops standards based on three key principles, i) a response to requests from the market; ii) based on global expert opinion who are part of the technical committee and; iii) developed based on a consensus.

Although these principles are no different to that of VSS, ISO standards characteristics also include members from the National Standard Bodies (NSBs) - 164 countries (member based on subscription with fees⁹) and the main organs of the Organization includes a General Assembly, a Council, a Technical Management Board, Technical Committees and a Central Secretariat.

Based on the national standard body’s membership subscription (subscriber/ correspondent/ full member), members have the rights to i) participate in developing international standards; ii) participate in developing policy; iii) sell ISO standards and publications, using copyright and the ISO name and logo and; iv) participate in governing ISO (ISO, 2015). By the end of 2018, 120 NSBs were full members, 39 NSBs were correspondent members and 3 NSBs were subscriber members (ISO Annual Report, 2018). As an ISO member, the NSB are the ones organizing consultations among stakeholders in their respective country to develop a national position on ISO standards.

Table 2: Extracted from ISO (2015).

9 Refer to ISO Membership manual for calculation of fees based on Full member, Correspondent member or Subscriber member - https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_membership_manual.pdf

(13)

As an example (not exclusive), the ISO Guide 82:2014 - Guidelines for addressing sustainability in standards on the other hand mentioned three types of sustainability standards: i) process standards are standards specifying measurements and definitions can directly or indirectly govern or affect physical or social processes, which can themselves have an impact on sustainability; ii) management system standards can indirectly alter the sustainability impact of the processes governed by the management system. Management systems can, for example, directly alter the activities of workers, the additional stakeholders involved, and the systematic strategies for identifying and managing sustainability issues and; iii) product standards include standards related to services, can have many different sustainability issues.

The ISO sustainability standards typically include ISO 26000 - Guidance on Social Responsibility, ISO 14001/4/44 – Environmental management systems, ISO 5006 – Energy management systems and ISO 20400 – Sustainable procurement guidelines.

In essence, although the standards development and implementation procedure between the ISO type standards and VSS may not be similar, by definition all sustainability standards are designed to contribute to sustainable development even though they aim to do so in different ways. Sustainability standards, gathered by D’Hollander and Marx (2014) are generally, market-based private regulation (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014; Büthe and Mattli, 2011), trade-related sustainability assurance schemes (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014; EC, 2009), sustainable supply chain governance systems (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014; Vermeulen et al., 2011), non-state market-driven governance systems (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014; Cashore et al., 2004), and non-statutory, private, voluntary, or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) standards (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014; Bendell et Al., 2011).

However, there also exist the fine lines between public and private sustainability standards from a market perspective. Public standards may be voluntary, while private standards may be made mandatory. In the same vein, India’s ‘Private’ Sustainability Standard (PSS) National Platform differentiated the term Voluntary from Private, claiming that private standards differ from the public ones and by using ‘private’ and ‘voluntary’ interchangeably may create confusion for the fact that public authorities have also created and adopted standards that are considered ‘voluntary’ (Pande, 2017).

Much of the current terminology characterized by the dichotomy between public or private regulation, or the distinction between voluntary and mandatory has become less clear-cut as governments have indeed adopted certain private standards to become de facto mandatory, especially for access to important markets.

(14)

Figure 5: An illustration to summarize sustainability standards terminology

1.3 Sustainability standards and its relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Given that Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) has typically been oriented towards its interactions with some of the SDGs, instruments such as sustainability standards can be considered in the overall policy context as they are technically shaped by the SDGs.

Against this background, sustainability standards have been considered as one of the most prominent transnational supply chain tools that were able to enhance the connection between developing countries to the more developed markets. As a result, sustainability standards have become an important tool for some bilateral development agencies to stimulate the uptake of these standards by supporting the efforts of producers in developing countries to attain higher environmental and social deliberations. Equivalently, sustainability standards, described in UNFSS (2016), are schemes that are able to bring greater transparency on how sustainably operated supply chains are managed, and that they provide market incentives to altering production processes towards more sustainable ones (UNFSS, 2016).

As sustainability standards expand their role in international trade, their integration in public policy is becoming more evident (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014).

• They enable governments to transcend the scope of their national regulatory capacities.

• These policy objectives can be reached without having to commit additional costs and resources to reforming the national regulatory framework and setting up necessary verification mechanisms.

• It allows governments to bring new social and environmental criteria into the economy without forcing them on the private sector. While these standards are voluntary and are subject of soft law, there are various ways in which governments can support their adoption, gradually making them semi-voluntary or mandatory in time (ibid.).

(15)

Against this background, much of the discussion on sustainability standards were invested around its deliberation towards the national’s motivation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

At this point in time, such data is not yet available as it is fairly new and limited in scope where the long-term impacts are hard to quantify. However, a mapping exercise on sustainability standards to the SDG indicators is currently underway, a study led by the European University Institute (EUI), International Trade Centre (ITC) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with VSS data gathered through the utilization of ITC’s Standards Map (sustainabilitymap.org).

For the purpose of this paper however, there are studies that have shown the general impacts of sustainability standards on the economic, social and environmental aspects of Sustainable Development.

1. Economic Impacts

Sustainability standards are potential contributors to SDGs 1 (Poverty Reduction), 8 (sustainable economic growth and employment), 9 (sustainable industrialization), and 10 (reduction in inequality) as they are tied to its implementation incumbency related to capacity building projects that may be able to help increase farmers’ productivity (COSA, 2013). This will lead to higher income for farmers, more stable relationships with their buyers, and greater access to resources (UNFSS, 2016; COSA, 2013).

Overdevest and Rickenback (2006) identified three possible benefits, i) sustainability standards as a market-based mechanism have the essentials in providing market advantages (in terms of price premiums, market access or increased consumer demand); ii) a teaming mechanism that enables the transfer of knowledge that might have an influence in innovation and better practices; and iii) an assurance mechanism or signal of hard-to-observe or predict organizational characteristics and practices, where Marx et al. (2015) described as a certification device to signal compliance with sustainability standards and hence protect inter alia their reputation (Marx et al., 2015; Overdevest and Rickenback, 2006).

However, the economic benefits of sustainability standards are still debatable when it comes to the profit distribution along the global supply chains. Although increased productivity may bring larger yields and increased overall revenue, it is however not evident to assume that the net income of farmers relatively increased as well. Some studies found that Fairtrade farmers receive higher prices, have greater access to credit (and) perceive their economic improvement as being more stable (UNFSS, 2016; IOB, 2014), yet there are also other studies that shows the economic gains from sustainable value chains do not necessarily accrue to the actors at the end of the value chain (i.e. farmers and producers). The Cocoa Barometer found that the value add for farmers in certified cocoa supply chains is only around 6.6%, while processors and retailers garner 35.2% and 44.2%, respectively (UNFSS, 2016; Barometer Consortium, 2015).

Much of this issue is still being discussed in international dialogues on sustainability standards, such that the need for ‘transparency’ became one of the most widely addressed issues.

2. Environmental Impacts

There are some sustainability standards that have a more promising contribution to the environment, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Rainforest Alliance, Forest Stewardship Council

(16)

(FSC), Union of Ethical BioTrade (UEBT) etc. These certifications stipulate practices such as limiting the use of agro-chemicals, policies on deforestation, soil conservation, waste, and water management, in order to control negative environmental externalities arising from value chains. However, Marx et al. (2015) claimed that the impact of forest certification is not evident on environmental conditions.

Their paper concluded that the process of FSC certification generates improvements with respect to the value managed forests for biodiversity but the incentives were not sufficient to attract the majority of the producers to seek certification, more so in tropical countries where the costs of improving forest management to meet FSC guidelines are significantly greater than any market benefits they receive (Marx et al., 2015).

However, studies up till today have mostly been focused on the uptake of these standards, which may be relevant to the impacts on the local environmental conditions. For this reason, a thematic study on Standards and Biodiversity conducted by the International Institute of sustainability standards (IISD, 2017) gave a more vivid perspective on the performance of 14 selected major international standards initiatives operating in the banana, cocoa, coffee, cotton, palm oil, soy, sugar, tea and cereals sectors based on the Biodiversity Impact Indicators for Commodity Production (BIIP) and found that an average of 63% coverage managed to signal a general alignment between sustainability standards criteria and the biodiversity objectives. Habitat conservation-related criteria and water use criteria carry the highest overall average coverage scores, while climate-specific criteria scores among the lowest (IISD, 2017). Overall, the standards reviewed focus on the protection of environmental systems rather than the measurement and monitoring or restoration of such systems.

Figure 6: IISD (2017) - Sustainability standards criteria information obtained from ITC Standards Map.

While sustainability standards offer several pathways to support biodiversity, these pathways require specific enforcement and governance mechanisms such that the growing influence for sustainability standards in the global landscape should operate through policy making, stakeholder engagement and capacity building activities.

(17)

3. Social Impacts

The 2014 State of Sustainability Report found that, on the average of sixteen analysed sustainability standards schemes, 51% of them covered the social criteria, i.e. human rights, labour rights, and gender (UNFSS, 2016). Most studies have focused on certification impacts on the local social relations.

Tsanga et. al. (2014) for example analysed the role of forest certification, FSC, in Cameroon in terms of relationship improvements between logging companies and communities and found that FSC certification did play a key role in the emergence of multi-stakeholder platforms which are meant to function as a ‘social exchange’ to strengthen local networks. This in turn leads to reduced conflicting relations by reinforcing the social requirements of the local forest laws (Marx et al., 2015; Tsanga et.

al., 2014). Similarly, ITC & EUI (2016) have also supported the role of stakeholders in sustainability standards governance and found that producers and producer associations tend to exude the highest level of engagement.

Figure 7: ITC & EUI (2016) - ITC and EUI calculations based on ITC Standards Map.

In addition to the high level of engagement, producers are also frequently involved in the management of standards and in standard-setting and review (ITC & EUI, 2016).

Marx et al. (2015) have also identified several studies that seem to suggest that forest certification holds a significant potential to integrate smallholders in the transnational commodity chains while empowering them as well. However, such positive outcome is not an indicative measure as other studies have also been able to highlight the challenges faced by smallholders in the context of certification process. In other cases, the lack of transparency in the distribution of benefits seem to have a more positive impact for the downstream economic actors in the value chain, such as brands/retailers, but less so for the farmers and producers.

Such imbalance of power dynamics have also been the reason why public authorities have to address these non-state, market-driven sustainability standards issue as much of the drawback could also have a significant impact on the entire economy.

The fact that these sustainability standards schemes can interact with the public sector in many ways, it is also an indication that government actions are often instrumental in stimulating and promoting the adoption of sustainability standards. While some developing countries have recognized the potential of sustainability standards to increase market access for exported products and services, developed markets whose economies have become reliant of imports of sustainably produced products

(18)

have identified sustainability standards as a useful instrument to reduce negative and environmental externalities (UNFSS, 2016).

2. Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP)

On the outset, Sustainable Procurement (SP) is defined as a process whereby organizations meet their needs for goods, services, works and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life cycle basis in terms of generating benefits not only to the organization, but also to society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to the environment¹⁰ (Defra, 2006).

SP according to the International Organization of Standardization (ISO)’s Sustainable Procurement Guidance (ISO 20400:2017) is a powerful instrument when an organization considers sustainability requirements and its own contribution to sustainable development. SP has the most positive environmental, social and economic impacts possible across the entire life cycle and strives to minimize adverse impacts with respect to the following principles; accountability, transparency, ethical behaviour, full and fair opportunity, respect for stakeholder interests, respect for the rule of law and international norms of behaviour, respect for human rights, innovative solutions, focus on needs, integration (in practice), analysis of all costs and continual improvement (ISO 20400, 2017).

The four primary goals of SP illustrated by Berry (2011) suggests that; i) it minimizes any negative impacts of goods, works or services across their life cycle and through supply chain for example impacts on the disposal of hazardous materials; ii) it minimizes demand for resources; iii) ensures that fair contract prices and terms are applied and respected that meet minimum ethical, human rights and employment standards; and iv) promotes diversity and equality throughout the supply chain (Berry, 2011).

While SP is mostly implemented by the private sector, SPP is typically associated with public policy with a more strategic approach that is able to justify taxpayers what is meant by value for money.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns (10YFP), the benefits of SPP can be manifold and often mutually reinforcing (Roos, 2012).

Potential economic benefits include, i) financial savings, where there will be reduced total cost for purchase, use, maintenance and disposal by using ‘whole-life costing’ (Roos, 2012). Academic studies have attempted to link cost savings in public spending generated by procurement to concrete economic improvements such as GDP growth, gains in employment and increased in consumption; for example, the savings in procurement could be reallocated to other policy areas (OECD, 2019); ii) SPP can drive markets to more innovative solutions such as shifting to cleaner technologies as an avenue to improve competitiveness of suppliers nationally and internationally which could eventually lower overall costs due to economies of scale (Roos, 2012). SPP can enable the effective use of economic resources by supporting wealth creation throughout the economy (OECD, 2019); and iii) increased access to

10 Updated by the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee of the 10YFP SPP Programme from: Procuring the Future – the report of the UK Sustainable Procurement Task Force, June 2006. Definition adopted by the Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Public Procurement. The footnote to the definition reads: Sustainable Procurement should consider the environmental, social and economic consequences of: Design; non-renewable material use; manufacture and production methods; logistics; service delivery; use; operation; maintenance; reuse; recycling options; disposal; and suppliers' capabilities to address these consequences throughout the supply chain.

(19)

markets can potentially promote small-medium companies globally and diversify the local suppliers (Roos, 2012). SPP can stimulate companies to be more competitive, productive and innovative, and in turn companies can provide employment and income for citizens (OECD, 2019).

Potential environmental benefits include, i) the contribution to mitigating environmental challenges such as responding to climate change, soil degradation, biodiversity loss, access to fresh water etc (Roos, 2012); ii) the contribution to achieving binding targets such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency and; ii) ameliorate local environment such as promoting non-toxic cleaning products, create healthier conditions for school children or by implementing low emission public transportation to improve local air quality (Roos, 2012). Through the correct use of Natural capital (individual assets like energy, water and land resources), this can directly have an input to the economic production by offering several benefits to the economic production when the environment is effectively managed, and it can also contribute the well-being of the people, for example improvements in the quality of life and health status of individuals can support higher labour market participation, resulting in further well-being and economic gains (OECD, 2019).

Potential social benefits can include, i) improved compliance with social and labor law with provisions of the basic International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions, ii) improved living conditions by promoting voluntary social standards such as Fair Trade (Roos, 2012). Through SPP, supply chain of business contracted to the government tender have a compliant or responsible “value chain”, thus sub-contractors will also be responsible in the business practices or conduct, such as fair wages and good working conditions (OECD, 2019) and; iii) improved social justice by integrating different communities that tend to be under-represented and also improve gender and ethnic equality (Roos, 2012). Contracting authorities can make deliberate decisions to contract with business that have certain characteristics, such as immigrant-owned businesses, or businesses employing people with disabilities or other groups that are not well represented in the workforce (OECD, 2019).

2.1. Sustainable Development Goals and SPP

Sustainable development has emerged as a collective goal for the international community, and the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through the United Nations (UN) Member-state- led process with civil society participation provides an opportunity to further reinforce the legal status of the sustainable development concept (Kim, 2016).

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations present an integral part of global governance through a non-binding, goal-setting approach that is largely detached from the international legal system. The SDGs mark a historic shift towards one sustainable development agenda after a long history of trying to integrate economic and social development with environmental sustainability. Such goal-setting approach became the driving force of global policy and governance (Biermann, Kanie & Kim, 2017). The SDGs are grounded in international law (Kim, 2016) but they are not legally binding, and the instrument that established them - a UN General Assembly resolution is in no way intended to grant immediate legal force to the goals. Accordingly, governments are under no legal obligation to formally transfer the goals into their national legal systems (Biermann, Kanie &

Kim, 2017). This approach underlines bottom-up, non-confrontational, country-driven, and stakeholder-oriented that has been cited as a key potential success factor to which states can formalize their commitments, strengthen related global governance arrangements, translate the global ambitions into national contexts, integrate sectoral policies and maintain flexibility in governance mechanisms

(20)

(Biermann, Kanie & Kim, 2017). The SDGs are not an objective in themselves but rather offers long- term perspectives that leave much freedom for governments to determine their own ambition in attaining the goals.

It is worth noting that the three pillars of sustainability - environment, social and economy, established the triple baseline of external concerns to be fulfilled, which means that procurers need to look beyond the conventional criteria of price, quality and service when making purchasing decisions. Today, public agencies are increasingly using their purchasing power as a positive instrument to promote Sustainable Development (UNEP, 2016a). SPP is becoming increasingly important as a consequence of the rise in environmental, social and economic challenges both in developed and developing countries. A government’s main priority in procurement is no longer determined by the cheapest option available. The evaluation of tenders has increasingly taken up the ‘best-value for money’

approach whereby public procurement decisions have been shifted to a multi-criteria specification that incorporates the environmental and social dimensions (Roos, 2012).

Figure 8: Adapted from Roos (2012).

2.2. International Sustainable Public Procurement Frameworks

As mentioned in the previous section, one form of interaction between governments and sustainability standards can be witnessed in SPP policies. SPP provide governments with a tool to support the adoption of sustainability standards through public contracts, and in doing so, governments gain influence in shaping the institutional development of third-party/private certification schemes (D’Hollander and Marx, 2014).

However, given the barriers of SPP discussed in Section 2.3, this section aims to provide some of the international SPP frameworks that governments can adopt. Some of these initiatives have direct connection with the use of sustainability standards while others do not. As a quick summary based on the study of these frameworks, it seems that the only point of distinction that differs SPP from the regular public procurement practice is the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable

Sustainable Development

“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” – Brundtland Report, 1987

Three Pillars:

Economic Social Environmental

Public Procurement

Overall process of acquiring goods, works, and services on behalf of the Public authority.

Key Principles

Best Value for Money (VfM) Acting Fairly

Sustainable Public Procurement

(21)

development – environment, social and economy and the need for continual improvement via monitoring mechanisms. In essence, this section analyses:

• The main content of some of the influential Public Procurement Frameworks

• If there are direct linkages with the use of sustainability standards

• Application of the EU GPP in Germany’s case study and UNEP 10YFP in Viet Nam’s case study

2.2.1 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement

In reference to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) principles of enhancing the integrity of public procurement, most of the part reflects the fundamentals of sustainability. The principles fall under four generic categories, i) transparency; ii) good management;

iii) prevention of misconduct, compliance and monitoring; and iv) accountability and control (OECD, 2009). Refer to Annex 1 for the 10 OECD Principles of Enhancing the integrity of public procurement.

The OECD Recommendation on Public Procurement is the overarching OECD guiding principle that promotes the strategic and holistic use of public procurement. The 2015 Recommendation which is being discussed here, builds upon the foundational principles of the “2008 OECD Recommendations on Enhancing in Public Procurement” by expanding them to reflect the critical role of public procurement to achieve efficiency and advancing policy objectives (OECD, 2017). Essentially, the guidance aims to provide a reference for modernising procurement systems that can be applied across all levels of the government and state-owned enterprises. It addresses the entire procurement cycle while integrating public procurement with other elements of strategic governance such as budgeting, financial management and additional forms of services delivery (ibid.).

Although the recommendations may not be directly linked to the concept of sustainable development, the underlying motive recommends the adherents of transparency, integrity, access, balanced, stakeholder participation, efficiency, e-procurement, capacity, evaluation, risk management, accountability and integration.

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement based on the 2008 principles provide the basis of a policy framework for enhancing integrity in the entire public procurement cycle.

While there are no set processes to comply with, the OECD developed a “Checklist” to help procurement officials implement the 12 principles.

In essence, the implementation of the OECD Public Procurement guidance come in the form of an online Toolbox¹¹. The Toolbox provides country cases, best practices and assessment tools such as the Methodology for Assessing Procurement Systems (MAPS) to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of public procurement systems based on 4 pillars, i) Legislative, Regulatory and Policy Framework;

ii) Institutional Framework and Management Capacity; iii) Procurement Operations and Market Practices and; iv) Accountability, Integrity and Transparency of the Public Procurement System. Each of these pillars includes indicators, sub-indicators and assessment criteria.

11OECD Public Procurement Online Toolbox is publicly accessible at https://www.oecd.org/governance/procurement/toolbox/

(22)

2.2.2. World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement - WTO GPA

The public procurement approach of the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA) considers the component on global trade from a plurilateral perspective.

Within the global trade terminology, one can assume that trade agreements between countries have a significant role in promoting the collective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals even though the provisions defined under the WTO GPA is not particularly focused on sustainability aspect of Public Procurement.

The fundamental aim of the WTO GPA is to mutually open government procurement markets among its parties. This paper thus, outlines only the key principles for public procurement in which Casier (2019) have highlighted to be the most important paragraphs that affect the implementation of sustainable procurement.

However, in regard to socioeconomic procurement, the non-discrimination provision (refer to Annex 2) remains contested as it prohibits origin-based discrimination. This means that, by favouring local suppliers in the tender procedure will be considered as a breach. However, preferential treatment of certain groups other than the country of origin should be encouraged, i.e. women-owned businesses.

In this case, procurement does not have to be used implicitly in favour of local suppliers. This goes in line with the WTO GPA endorsement of “green” procurement specified in Art. X, even though the WTO GPA does not particularly associate their procurement activities with being green and/or sustainable (Casier, 2019).

Analysed by Casier (2019), three key paragraphs in the provision of technical specifications (refer to Annex 3) highlights sustainable procurement: i) under the description in 2(a), this provision encourages the use of performance-based or functional specifications, which is by definition a useful way to make procurement more sustainable; ii) similarly, 2(b) describes the encouragement of using specifications based on international standards. This means that the integrity of meeting what is internationally perceived as good ethics is highly favourable; iii) last but not least, point 6 specifically highlights the promotion of conservation of natural resources or protect the environment.

The General Principles on Conduct of Procurement (refer to Annex 4) is important for sustainable procurement given that procurers are not technically sustainability experts, but through diverse tendering methods they can engage with suppliers and learn more about the best technologies and practices for their needs. In essence, these engagements should be open, transparent and accessible to all interested suppliers. These principles are intended to protect suppliers from unfair procurement practices and help guarantee better value for money for the taxpayers (Casier, 2019).

Essentially, the WTO GPA promises to promote market opening, good governance, transparency and integrity, with a broader goal of helping developing countries implement the same principles by providing special treatment that allows transitional measures to support their development priorities¹². Although Sustainable Development in this framework is not the most prominent factor, there may be some linkages between the benefits of the WTO GPA in supporting economic development, such as the facilitation for domestic producers to gain access in foreign markets, apart from increasing transparency of domestic procurement markets by making better use of public resources and,

12 https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/20y_e/gpa_brochure2015_e.pdf

(23)

encouraging foreign direct investment and transfer of new technology from abroad. Moreover, developing countries will get the aid for transitional measures, such as phasing-in of market access commitments (WTO, 2015).

2.2.3. The World Bank’s Sustainable Procurement Guidance

Different from the OECD’s recommendation of public procurement approach and the WTO GPA, the World Bank’s Sustainable Public Procurement guidance provides a practical approach on how to include sustainability factors into the procurement processes, as well as providing incentives for vendors to offer more sustainable products and services (World Bank, 2019)¹³. The guidance is non- mandatory and serves mainly as an illustration of good practice. It is important to note however, that the guidance is meant for World Bank staff and Borrowers responsible for implementing Bank Investment Project Financing (IPF).

Just like other organizations, the World Bank’s SPP practices follow 7 core procurement principles – Value for Money, Economy, Integrity, Fit-for-Purpose, Efficiency, Transparency and Fairness.

Essentially, the Bank aims to help clients get better development results as it gives the World Bank the space and capacity to significantly increase its support to help countries develop their own procurement systems (World Bank, 2015).

The World Bank has identified 6 key stages in procurement process and the way to integrate sustainability considerations.

Figure 9: World Bank (2019) 6 key stages of sustainable procurement process¹⁴

13The World Bank Sustainable Procurement Guidance referenced in this paper is taken from the Second edition which was published in April 2019. The first edition was published in November 2016.

14 Further details on each of the stages of SPP process can be found here:

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/788731479395390605/Guidance-on-Sustainable-Procurement.pdf

(24)

The vision for procurement financed by the Bank through the IPF operations is:

“Procurement in Investment Project Financing (IPF) supports Borrowers to achieve value for money (VfM) with integrity in delivering sustainable development.”

However, as a stated fact, “sustainability” remains loosely defined (Yukins & Williams-Elegbe, 2018) though the Bank’s reflection of it allows sustainability goals in sustainable procurement requirements be based on evidence (i.e., with supporting data), and the use of existing social-label criteria, eco-label criteria or information collected from stakeholders (World Bank, 2019).

Unlike the OECD Council on Public Procurement Recommendations, the World Bank’s SPP guidance has a specific criterion on sustainability standards which falls under the requirements stage. According to the Bank, sustainability criteria are generally based on verifiable standards and technical competencies that are ought to identify specific certification or verification of an industry, environmental or social standard, code of management system standard (World Bank, 2019).

Technical capability is the key determining factor in the ability to meet social and environmental requirements. In essence, sustainability criteria must be directly linked to the performance of the contract, i.e. in the bidder pre-qualification phase certifications or equivalent verification of industry specific environmental and social standards. This type of independent certification can therefore be an important verification of the necessary technical and professional qualification of a supplier (ibid.).

Standard certifications and labels, according to the Bank, are valuable tools for implementing sustainable procurement. When labels are applied appropriately, they can be useful in preparing conformance specifications and aware criteria. Borrowers may use criteria from labels to draft conformance certifications and verify compliance (ibid.).

Reference Description

Eco-Label Index A global directory of Eco-Labels available worldwide.

Global Eco-Labelling Network (GEN)

The GEN is a non-profit association of third-party, environmental performance recognition, certification and labelling organizations founded to improve, promote and develop the “Eco-Labelling” of products and services.

EU GPP Criteria The EU GPP criteria are developed to facilitate the inclusion of green requirements in public tender documents.

International Trade Centre (ITC) Standards Map

Provides information on standards, codes of conduct and audit protocols addressing sustainability hotspots in global supply chains.

International Finance Corporation (IFC)/ World Bank Performance Standards

Includes environmental and social performance standards and define client’s responsibilities for managing their environmental and social risks.

Table 2: (World Bank, 2019) World Bank’s identified examples of portals of labels and certification schemes available worldwide at the time of publishing (refer to Annex 5 for the World Banks’s non-exhaustive list of labels and certification schemes).

(25)

2.2.4. European Union (EU) Green Public Procurement (GPP)

Government expenditure on works, good and services represents around 14% of EU GDP, accounting for roughly EUR 1,8 trillion annually (EU, 2016). Sustainable Development is recognized as an overarching goal in the EU, since its inclusion in the EU Treaty Principles in 1997 (Roos, 2012). On 26 February 2014, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament adopted two directives, i) Directive 2014/24/EU on Public Procurement and ii) Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, all of which aimed at simplifying public procurement procedures and making them more flexible. These directives superseded Directive 2004/18/EC on the classical public sector and Directive 2004/17/EC on utilities¹⁵. It is equally important to note that both the 2004 Directives and the proposed reforms take into account the EU’s obligations as a party to the WTO plurilateral Agreement on GPA. By applying the Directives to economic operators of third countries that are signatory to the GPA, EU contracting authorities fulfil their obligations under the GPA (Semple, 2012).

Both the WTO GPA and the EU directives contain binding obligations¹⁶ to publish information about the tender opportunities open to companies of their trading partners. The GPA also contains obligations to report statistics about the procurements taking place to ensure access to opportunity (ibid. page 8).

The EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) on the other hand reinforces the directives with a ‘best practice’ approach following the principle of ‘best value for money’ through transparent and fair competitive process in line with the rules of the EU single market with the obligation to include environmental and social parameters, and ‘acting fairly’ which ensures transparency and equal opportunities for bidders to compete for the tender contract (Roos, 2012).

The GPP strategy has also been enhanced with the establishment of the common GPP product criteria.

Based on the EU (2016a) 3^rd Edition of ‘Buying green’ handbook, criteria for the 21 product groups are listed in the table below:

EU GPP Product Groups 1. Cleaning products and services

2. Copying and graphic paper 3. Combined heat and power (CHP) 4. Office Buildings

5. Electrical and electronic equipment in the health care sector

6. Electricity

7. Food and catering services 8. Furniture

9. Gardening products and services 10. Imaging equipment

11. Indoor lighting 12. Office IT equipment

13. Road Design, Construction and Maintenance 14. Sanitary tapware

15. Street lighting and traffic signals 16. Textiles

17. Toilets and urinals 18. Transport

19. Wall Panels

20. Wastewater infrastructure 21. Water-based heaters Table 3: EU (2016a) – EU GPP Product Groups

15 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_public_directives_en.htm

16These obligations are in addition to the transparency requirements of local laws and oftentimes based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement

(26)

The EU GPP criteria include two ‘levels’ for each sector covered (ibid. page 15):

• The core criteria are designed to allow easy application of GPP, focus on the key area(s) of environmental performance of a product or service, and aim to keep administrative costs for companies to a minimum.

• The comprehensive criteria take into account more aspects of higher levels of environmental performance and are for use by authorities that want to go further in supporting environmental and innovation goals.

Where sustainability standards and labels are concerned, EU GPP recognizes these labels as a tool to help purchasers identify sustainable products and services. The environmental labels have been broken down into 4 categories:

• Multi-criteria labels are the most common type of environmental label and also the most commonly used in GPP. They are mostly based on scientific information about the environmental impact of a product or service information about the environmental impact of a product or service throughout its life cycle, from extraction of the raw materials, through production and distribution the use phase and final disposal. Examples of this type of label include the EU Ecolabel, the Nordic Swan and the Blue Angel.

• Single issue labels are based on one or more pass/fail criteria linked to specific issue eg. EU Organic label or the Energy Star label.

• Sector-specific labels include forestry certification schemes operated by organizations such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).

• Graded product labels grade products and services according to the environmental performance on the issue. Examples include EU Energy Label.

The EU GPP criteria are designed to be inserted directly into tender documents and include information on verification methods. Echoing to the ways of using labels in EU GPP, it is also necessary to look at the labels as a confirmation that, i) they only concern criteria which are linked to the subject matter of the contract; ii) they are based on objectively verifiable and non-discriminatory criteria; iii) they are established using an open and transparent procedure in which all relevant stakeholders, including government bodies, consumers, social partners, manufacturers, distributors and non-governmental organizations, may participate; iv) they are accessible to all interested parties;

and v) they are set by a third party over which the economic operator applying for the label cannot exercise a decisive influence¹⁷ (EU, 2016).

In reference to the new EU directive for public procurement that was adopted in 2014, contracting authorities are able to directly require sustainability certification as proof, where else as D’Hollander and Marx (2014) stated that in the majority of the legal frameworks for public procurement, choosing a trademark or private label would imply discrimination and unfair treatment as it excludes uncertified products and services out of their procurement range. The authors have also noted that demanding a

17 Article 43(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU; article 61(1) of Directive 2014/25/EU https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0024&from=EN

Integrating sustainability standards into public procurement process : a comparative analysis between Germany and Viet nam

Master

Reference

Integrating sustainability standards into public procurement process : a comparative analysis between Germany and Viet nam

Integrating Sustainability Standards into Public Procurement Process

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Sustainability Standards

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Standard

1.2 Sustainability Standards Terminology

1.3 Sustainability standards and its relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

2. Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP)

2.1. Sustainable Development Goals and SPP

2.2. International Sustainable Public Procurement Frameworks

2.2.1 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Recommendation of the Council on Public Procurement

2.2.2. World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement - WTO GPA

2.2.3. The World Bank’s Sustainable Procurement Guidance

2.2.4. European Union (EU) Green Public Procurement (GPP)