Increased Transparency in Procurement: The Role of Peer Effects

Abstract

Motivated by recent initiatives to increase transparency in procurement, we study the effects of disclosing information about previous purchases in a setting where an organization delegates its purchasing decisions to its employees. When employees can use their own discretion, which may be influenced by personal preferences, to select a supplier, the incentives of the employees and the organization may be misaligned. Disclosing information about previous purchasing decisions made by other employees can reduce or exacerbate this misalignment, as peer effects may come into play. To understand the effects of transparency, we introduce a theoretical model that compares employees’ actions in two settings: one where employees cannot observe each other’s choices and one where they can observe the decision previously made by a peer before making their own. Two behavioral assumptions are central to our model: that employees are heterogeneous in their reciprocity toward their employer, and that they experience peer effects in the form of income inequality aversion toward their peer. As a result, our model predicts the existence of negative spillovers as a reciprocal employee is more likely to choose the expensive supplier (which gives the employee a personal reward) when the employee observes that a peer did so. A laboratory experiment confirms the existence of negative spillovers and the main behavioral mechanisms described in our model. A surprising result not predicted by our theory is that employees whose decisions are observed by their peers are less likely to choose the expensive supplier than the employees in the no-transparency case. We show that observed employees’ preferences for compliance with the social norm of appropriate purchasing behavior explain our data well. This paper was accepted by Yuval Victor Martinez de Albeniz, operations management.

A review of supply chain transparency research: Antecedents, technologies, types, and outcomes

“…Operational transparency can accordingly be defined as the sharing of procedures governing buyer–supplier transactions, in order to ensure that the procedures are administered consistently (Bray, 2023; Buell et al., 2017). This type of transparency often affects the procurement function within an SC, sometimes through the selection criteria for suppliers, especially in governmental purchase contexts (Beer et al., 2021; Preuss, 2009; Quiroga et al., 2021; Stoll & Zöttl, 2017; Wooten et al., 2020).…”

A systematic review of the linkages between corporate governance systems and procurement practices in public procurement entities

“…Moreover, in recognition of this fact that one important object of the Public Procurement Board states: "the professional development, promotion and support for individuals engaged in public procurement and to ensure adherence to ethical standards by trained persons." Transparency, on the other hand, means the application of the same rules to all suppliers of goods, works and services and that these rules are publicized as the basis of procurement decisions before their use (Ruth et al, 2021). Transparency enables the creation of open, fair and transparent procurement procedures and helps in the growth of in-country investments and competitiveness as the public sector is seen as a responsible business partner (Bandiyono et al, 2020).…”

Transparency And Halal Procurement In The Hotel Industry

“…The connection between transparency and halal procurement is access through information sharing (Sofyani et al, 2020). A study by Beer et al (2021) provides significant information for companies planning to implement transparency initiatives in their procurement processes. The research 19 found that a company can avoid overspending practices in their procurement practice through transparency, indirectly improving business performance.…”