Enablers and Barriers of Sustainability for Small Public Purchases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The incorporation of environmental and social sustainability criteria into public procurement practices/procedures should play a key role in achieving a more sustainable society and future, particularly given its central position in public spending and its impact in GDP -as mentioned in the article-. Without a shadow of doubt, while purchases below the thresholds amounts specified in the EU Directives remain less visible, their significance should not be underestimated. Member states fulfil a significant responsibility over these “small” public purchases. For this reason, I find this research interesting and relevant from an academic perspective.

The article starts with an accurate introduction to the topic and the research question is also clear: “what internal and external barriers and enablers influence the integration of sustainability in public procurement for smaller purchases?”. Subsequently, it provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, which is mainly presented in the “literature review”, “material and methods” and “results”. Moreover, “discussion” is also clear and correct. In short, I consider that the structure and content are appropriate.

Finally, I would like to make two recommendations: 1. to better define who this article is addressed to, which I usually suggest and 2. to expand on the conclusions presented.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Comments 1: The incorporation of environmental and social sustainability criteria into public procurement practices/procedures should play a key role in achieving a more sustainable society and future, particularly given its central position in public spending and its impact in GDP -as mentioned in the article-. Without a shadow of doubt, while purchases below the thresholds amounts specified in the EU Directives remain less visible, their significance should not be underestimated. Member states fulfil a significant responsibility over these “small” public purchases. For this reason, I find this research interesting and relevant from an academic perspective.

Response 1: Thank you! This is nice to read.

Comments 2: The article starts with an accurate introduction to the topic and the research question is also clear: “what internal and external barriers and enablers influence the integration of sustainability in public procurement for smaller purchases?”. Subsequently, it provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, which is mainly presented in the “literature review”, “material and methods” and “results”. Moreover, “discussion” is also clear and correct. In short, I consider that the structure and content are appropriate.

Response 2: Thank you!

Comments 3: Finally, I would like to make two recommendations: 1. to better define who this article is addressed to, which I usually suggest

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We added an extra paragraph at the end of the introduction that explains who this article is addressed to. Specifically, we explain now why the article is relevant for scholars, policymakers, and professionals.

Comments 4: and 2. to expand on the conclusions presented.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. As you can see in the revised version of the paper, we expanded on the conclusions.

Finally, we would like to thank you and the other reviewers once again for your feedback. We believe that the paper has become significantly stronger as a result.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, the authors address the topic of sustainable public procurement, which means taking into account the principles of sustainable development during the preparation and conduct of public procurement procedures. Thus, supplies, services, or works purchased as a result of public procurement procedures have the least possible impact on the natural environment, as well as taking into account the social and economic effects of purchasing decisions while ensuring purposeful, rational, and economical spending of public funds. After familiarizing yourself with the content of the study, I propose introducing the following corrections following the comments below:

1. Please complete the purpose of the article in the introduction.

2. In the introduction, I propose a detailed description of the subject of the research, i.e. the role of public procurement in the water management sector. In addition, it should be justified why the undertaken research problem is important.

3. In the chapter on the literature review, I propose characterizing the water management system by the above-mentioned institutions, because usually each country has a different type of water resources management.

4. In subsection 3.2, the data collection procedure should be described in detail, including the number of questions in the questionnaire, their type, date of the survey, description of respondents, etc. In the case of the analyzed documents, the material collection procedure and the criteria for selecting documents should be described in detail.

5. In Chapter 4, the results should be divided according to the data sets (if the authors analyzed the results of interviews and documents, they should be discussed separately).

6. In Chapter 5, a discussion should be presented, i.e. the authors should indicate what results from the conducted research, what new things they have learned about the implementation of sustainable public procurement in the analyzed sector, and what other authors of similar works knew. What are the similarities and differences in the results? In addition, the authors should specify what further research plans they have related to the analyzed issue.

7. The text should be proofread, mainly punctuation marks, the lack of "the” and singular/plural.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text should be proofread, mainly punctuation marks, the lack of "the” and singular/plural.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.

In the article, the authors address the topic of sustainable public procurement, which means taking into account the principles of sustainable development during the preparation and conduct of public procurement procedures. Thus, supplies, services, or works purchased as a result of public procurement procedures have the least possible impact on the natural environment, as well as taking into account the social and economic effects of purchasing decisions while ensuring purposeful, rational, and economical spending of public funds. After familiarizing yourself with the content of the study, I propose introducing the following corrections following the comments below:

Comments 1. Please complete the purpose of the article in the introduction.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the purpose of the article more effectively in the revised version of the paper. The purpose of this study is to examine what happens to smaller purchases and their sustainable practices. This is important not only because of the potential sustainable impact of sustainable public procurement, but also due to the specific dynamics that may influence smaller purchases in public organizations.

Comments 2. In the introduction, I propose a detailed description of the subject of the research, i.e. the role of public procurement in the water management sector. In addition, it should be justified why the undertaken research problem is important.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We added the following section to the introduction about the role of public procurement in the water management sector, and linking it with our research:

We conducted case studies across five regional water authorities in the water-rich Netherlands. These authorities are public organizations, structured similarly to Dutch municipalities. They manage a wide range of procurement activities, from infrastructure projects to service contracts. Public procurement plays an important role for water authorities, as it enables them to secure the goods, services, and works needed to fulfill their responsibilities, such as maintaining water quality, managing water levels, and ensuring flood protection. Through procurement, water authorities can influence market behavior by integrating sustainability into their purchases. While larger purchases are prominent, a large number of smaller purchases also have the potential to drive sustainability.

We added the following section to the introduction about the importance of the research problem, combining your feedback with the feedback of reviewer 1:

This article targets scholars, policymakers, professionals, and environmental advocates involved in public procurement or sustainability, especially within the EU. It provides new insights for scholars by highlighting the barriers and enablers for implementing sustainability in smaller public purchases, while also emphasizing the im-portance of these purchases for sustainability efforts. Policymakers may find it useful for gaining a clearer understanding of how sustainability is integrated into public procurement practices, particularly in smaller purchases, and the associated challenges. The article may also serve as an eye-opener, as we argue that the sustainability im-pact and potential of smaller purchases have been underestimated. Public procurement practitioners can relate to the practical challenges discussed, such as internal evaluations that could focus more on the number of completed projects rather than their sustainability impact. Additionally, environmental advocates may be interested in the article’s focus on the environmental impact of public procurement decisions and the often-overlooked significance of smaller purchases.

Comments 3. In the chapter on the literature review, I propose characterizing the water management system by the above-mentioned institutions, because usually each country has a different type of water resources management.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a paragraph about this at the end of Section 3.1. We believe that the text fits better in the methods section than in the literature review, as we also discuss other aspects of the water management system in the Netherlands in the methods section. The full new paragraph text is as follows:

The approach to water management in the Netherlands differs from that of most other countries. The Netherlands’ system is quite uniquely organized, with its emphasis on localized governance and direct taxation for water management, and is considered one of the best globally (e.g., Blankesteijn and Pot, 2024). The organization in the Netherlands contrasts with the more centralized approaches found in many other countries (Blankesteijn and Pot, 2024). However, this unique structure is largely separate from the procurement processes relevant to our research. In both the Netherlands and many other countries, we expect the vast majority of purchases to be relatively small compared to larger purchases, which often receive more attention.

Comments 4. In subsection 3.2, the data collection procedure should be described in detail, including the number of questions in the questionnaire, their type, date of the survey, description of respondents, etc. In the case of the analyzed documents, the material collection procedure and the criteria for selecting documents should be described in detail.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. All questions were already included in Appendix A, clarifying the number and type of questions. We have clarified this in the revised version of the paper by changing the sentence “The interview protocol can be found in Appendix A” to “The interview questions can be found in Appendix A. The interviews were conducted between October 4, 2022, and February 24, 2023.” Additionally, we have added a table with more information about the types of respondents for each case organization (see the new Table 1 in the revised version of the paper). Finally, we have clarified in several parts of Section 3.2 how the documents were collected and the decisions made during the selection process.

Comments 5. In Chapter 4, the results should be divided according to the data sets (if the authors analyzed the results of interviews and documents, they should be discussed separately).

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We chose not to make this distinction, as it would have led to repetition or made the text less readable. The document analysis and interview analysis often resulted in similar findings where relevant, or in cases where the analyses covered complementary topics, separating the sections might have been less clear. Additionally, the other reviewers did not provide this feedback. However, we have clarified when specific findings emerged from the document analysis. We hope this sufficiently addresses your comment.

Comments 6. In Chapter 5, a discussion should be presented, i.e. the authors should indicate what results from the conducted research, what new things they have learned about the implementation of sustainable public procurement in the analyzed sector, and what other authors of similar works knew. What are the similarities and differences in the results? In addition, the authors should specify what further research plans they have related to the analyzed issue.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We found it challenging to address this. The other reviewers expressed satisfaction with section 5 and the section already contains a summary of the results from the conducted research. In section 5, we also addressed the new insights we gained and what was previously known. Additionally, we included suggestions for further research. We did expand on this a bit more in the revised version of the paper. We hope this sufficiently addresses your comment.

Comments 7. The text should be proofread, mainly punctuation marks, the lack of "the” and singular/plural.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We made several changes throughout the document as you can see in the revised version of the document.

Finally, we would like to thank you and the other reviewers once again for your feedback. We believe that the paper has become significantly stronger as a result.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting manuscript, and I like the proposed methodology. However, we believe, that the authors should consider the following comments:

Abstract

Improve the wording and indicate the contribution and methodology to be used in the research:

1.- Introduction.

Improve the wording in paragraphs 2 and 3.

Highlight the contribution of the work in paragraph 4.

2.- Literature review

Place paragraph 1 at the end of the Introduction section.

2.1 It is recommended that the methodology used to support the interview process be described in point 3.

2.2 Paragraph 1

No references are observed.

3.- Material and methods

Comment on the generalization of the results of this work for the research community.

4.- Results

An adequate analysis is observed.

5.- Discussion

An adequate analysis is observed.

Please review the use of citations according to the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find our detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Comments 1: It is an interesting manuscript, and I like the proposed methodology.

Response 1: Thank you! This is nice to read.

However, we believe, that the authors should consider the following comments:

Comments 2: Abstract

Improve the wording and indicate the contribution and methodology to be used in the research:

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We improved the abstract based on your feedback.

Comments 3: 1.- Introduction.

Improve the wording in paragraphs 2 and 3.

Highlight the contribution of the work in paragraph 4.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We improved the wording in paragraphs 2 and 3, and in several other paragraphs as well. Based on your feedback and the feedback of reviewers 1 and 2, we added the following paragraph at the of the introduction, highlighting the contribution of the work:

This article targets scholars, policymakers, professionals, and environmental advocates involved in public procurement or sustainability, especially within the EU. It provides new insights for scholars by highlighting the barriers and enablers for implementing sustainability in smaller public purchases, while also emphasizing the im-portance of these purchases for sustainability efforts. Policymakers may find it useful for gaining a clearer understanding of how sustainability is integrated into public procurement practices, particularly in smaller purchases, and the associated challenges. The article may also serve as an eye-opener, as we argue that the sustainability im-pact and potential of smaller purchases have been underestimated. Public procurement practitioners can relate to the practical challenges discussed, such as internal evaluations that could focus more on the number of completed projects rather than their sustainability impact. Additionally, environmental advocates may be interested in the article’s focus on the environmental impact of public procurement decisions and the often-overlooked significance of smaller purchases.

2.- Literature review

Comments 4: Place paragraph 1 at the end of the Introduction section.

Response 4: Add the end of the introduction, we added a paragraph explaining the structure of the complete article.

Comments 5: 2.1 It is recommended that the methodology used to support the interview process be described in point 3.

Response 5: We are not entirely sure if we have understood your comment, but in the method section (Section 3), we have included more details about the interview process, also partly based on the feedback from reviewer 2.

Comments 6: 2.2 Paragraph 1

No references are observed.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We added references to the relevant documents of the EU and one academic paper.

Comments 7:3.- Material and methods

Comment on the generalization of the results of this work for the research community.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. Based on your feedback and that of reviewer 2, we have added the following paragraph at the end of Section 3.1:

The approach to water management in the Netherlands differs from that of most other countries. The Netherlands’ system is quite uniquely organized, with its emphasis on localized governance and direct taxation for water management, and is considered one of the best globally (e.g., Blankesteijn and Pot, 2024). The organization in the Netherlands contrasts with the more centralized approaches found in many other countries (Blankesteijn and Pot, 2024). However, this unique structure is largely separate from the procurement processes relevant to our research. In both the Netherlands and many other countries, we expect the vast majority of purchases to be relatively small compared to larger purchases, which often receive more attention.

Comments 8: 4.- Results

An adequate analysis is observed.

Response 8: Thank you!

Comments 9: 5.- Discussion

An adequate analysis is observed.

Response 9: Thank you!

Comments 10: Please review the use of citations according to the journal.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. As you can see in the revised version of the paper, we changed the use of citations according to the journal.

Finally, we would like to thank you and the other reviewers once again for your feedback. We believe that the paper has become significantly stronger as a result.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the changes proposed by the authors.