(c) Michelle Ress (2007).
Steve Schooner and Evan Matsuda have published the useful briefing paper ‘Sustainable Procurement: Building Vocabulary To Accelerate The Federal Procurement Conversation’ (2021). This comes fast on the heel’s of Schooner and Markus Speidel’s earlier ‘‘Warming Up’ to Sustainable Procurement’ (2020), and represents a forceful and useful push to get the discussions on the urgency of a quick transition to (net-zero) sustainable procurement started (in the US), or intensified (elsewhere, perhaps especially in the EU, where the SAPIENS network is also starting to catalyse important aspects of the debate).
Their briefing paper is useful in setting out accessible definitions, and a general overview, of key aspects of an emerging body of knowledge on sustainable procurement (and climate change more generally) and, from that perspective, it can also serve the purpose of offering a blueprint for similar or twin mapping exercises in contexts other than the US. Having a common vocabulary and understanding of key concepts can certainly allow practitioners (and academics) to skip discussions on labelling (or conceptual issues, if this jargon is more palatable to an academic audience) and cut to the chase of exchanging knowledge on practical implementations that are comparable and readily understandable.
The briefing paper also contains a useful rich section on existing resources and, as such, it is a good one stop shop for anyone interested in (US-based) sustainable procurement regulation. And it is intensely referenced, which will also help researchers find a broad number of leads to more specific literature on each of the topics it covers. Lat but not least, the paper formulates punchy and actionable guidelines (or principles) on how to engage with its recommendations.
The briefing paper is perhaps even more useful in sketching how (in the US context) sustainable procurement is a long standing (neglected) aspiration which implementation does not require reinventing the wheel, but rather operating a few levers that have been available to public buyers for a long time. And the paper is also remarkable in politely but clearly putting out the statement that failing to use those levers is no longer acceptable.
I hope the paper will be widely read (even outside the US context) and that the procurement community will get (even more) alive to the urgency of the transition (or transformation) to sustainable procurement.
Perhaps Steve Schooner and co-author/s (or others) could be tempted into bring their guidelines down to a more specific level of practicality, eg writing another paper along the lines of ‘Nobody ever got fired for …’ in relation to sustainable procurement (not a branded ICT supplier) as, in my view, one of the major roadblocks to the adoption of widespread sustainable procurement practices are misunderstandings and myths on the constraints that the legal system imposes (of which there are a fair few, but not as many or as insurmountable as the urban myth would have it), which can have chilling effects on practitioners.
Having a clear boundary drawn on what is legally permissible (and should thus be carried out as a matter of policy, and urgency) and what is not (so pitfalls are avoided and the bad reputation of the legal rules as hindrances on sustainable procurement is not fuelled by the emergence of more bad cases) would be another major contribution. And one that could be replicated in other jurisdictions to establish a benchmark of ‘legal’ sustainable procurement practices, hopefully launching a ‘race to the top’ in years (not many) to come.