A field-level examination of the adoption of sustainable procurement in the social housing sector

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on a field-level examination of the adoption of sustainable procurement in social housing. It explores the role of regulation and procurement consortia in sustainable procurement. Design/methodology/approach – The study employs a case study of the UK social housing sector and uses an online survey (n=116) of UK Housing Associations. Factor analysis identifies three parsimonious dimensions of sustainable procurement. Attitudinal data are analysed to explore the field-level adoption of sustainable procurement and the role of consortia. Findings – The results delineate sustainable procurement activities into three factors; direction setting, supplier-centric assurance and local socially oriented supply. High yet sup-optimal levels of sustainable procurement activity are revealed. Prevailing attitudes identify positive commitments to sustainable procurement at individual, organisational and sector levels. The value of network collaboration is identified. Tenants as critical stakeholders do not prioritise sustainable procurement creating challenge for inclusivity. Regulators are seen to a have low level of sustainable procurement knowledge and procurement consortia a high perceived knowledge. Research limitations/implications – Results provide insight into the effect of sustainable procurement policy, the role of regulators and network structures and consortia, raising issues around legitimacy, coopetition, stakeholder engagement, performance measurement, and functional/sectoral maturity. Social implications – The identification of the potential exclusion of tenants in sustainability debates is particularly significant to deliver social value. Originality/value – The relative newness of the social housing sector and its quasi-public sector status provides an original contribution to the consortia and sustainable procurement literatures.

Coopetition for sustainability: Between organizational benefit and societal good

“…Furthermore, the findings of the studies that look at sustainability outcomes of coopetition are somewhat fragmented. Rather than conceptualizing systematically what sustainability outcomes could mean, these studies show that coopetition can be favorable for some specific aspects that relate to sustainability like logistics (Limoubpratum et al, ), green product innovation (Melander, ), procurement (Meehan & Bryde, ), or recycling (Volschenk et al, ). Christ et al () explore for example a coopetitive agreement in the Australian wine industry that reduced usage of fossil fuels and refrigeration by jointly outsourcing bottling and packaging.…”

“…Those studies that take an explicit interest in coopetition for sustainability do discuss different types of outcomes on a general level (Bowen, Bansal, & Slawinski, 2018;Christ et al, 2017;Limoubpratum et al, 2015;Meehan & Bryde, 2015;Peloza & Falkenberg, 2009;Planko, Chappin, Cramer, & Hekkert, 2019;Stadtler, 2017;Volschenk et al, 2016). Still, there is a lack of a systematic unpacking of what these possible outcomes of coopetition for sustainability may actually be.…”

“…Furthermore, the findings of the studies that look at sustainability outcomes of coopetition are somewhat fragmented. Rather than conceptualizing systematically what sustainability outcomes could mean, these studies show that coopetition can be favorable for some specific aspects that relate to sustainability like logistics (Limoubpratum et al, 2015), green product innovation (Melander, 2017), procurement (Meehan & Bryde, 2015), or recycling (Volschenk et al, 2016 In general, the studies of coopetition for sustainability suggest that cooperation between competitors can leverage the limited technological, financial, and human resources available to each participating firm and use such resources in a more efficient way in terms of sustainability.…”

Is Supply's Actual Contribution to Sustainable Development Strategic and Operational?

“…(, p. 21) clearly state that ‘…companies… are virtually united in the view that sustainability, however defined, is and will be a major force to be reckoned with – and one that will have a determining impact on the way their business think, act, manage and compete’. Therefore, sustainable development is no more a matter of choice for organizations (Berns et al ., ; Paulraj, ; Porter and Kramer, ; Roman, ) and, as a result, many organizations have already adopted sustainable supply practices (Pagell et al ., ; Walker et al ., ; Meehan and Bryde, ). Krause et al .…”

Time to get real: The case for critical action research in purchasing and supply management

“…The danger here is that organisations, and PSM researchers, may only engage with traditional, commercially orientated network partners (Meehan and Bryde, 2015), and performance considerations persist in narrow terms. AR, in comparison seeks to promote a more democratic and inclusive approach to research in pursuit of sustainable change to minimise the risks of marginalising issues or groups though abstracted universal theories (Bondy and Starkey, 2014).…”