Loosemore, M; Denny-Smith, G; Barraket, J; Keast, R; Chamberlain, D; Muir, K; Powell, A; Higgon, D and Osborne, J (2021) Optimising social procurement policy outcomes through cross-sector collaboration in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(7), pp. 1908-1928. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Social procurement policies are an emerging policy instrument being used by governments around the world to leverage infrastructure and construction spending to address intractable social problems in the communities they represent. The relational nature of social procurement policies requires construction firms to develop new collaborative partnerships with organisations from the government, not-for-profit and community sectors. The aim of this paper is to address the paucity of research into the risks and opportunities of entering into these new cross-sector partnerships from the perspectives of the stakeholders involved and how this affects collaborative potential and social value outcomes for intended beneficiaries. Design/methodology/approach: This case study research is based on a unique collaborative intermediary called Connectivity Centre created by an international contractor to coordinate its social procurement strategies. The findings draw on a thematic analysis of qualitative data from focus groups with 35 stakeholders from the construction, government, not-for-profit, social enterprise, education and employment sectors. Findings: Findings indicate that potentially enormous opportunities which social procurement offers are being undermined by stakeholder nervousness about policy design, stability and implementation, poor risk management, information asymmetries, perverse incentives, candidate supply constraints, scepticism, traditional recruitment practices and industry capacity constraints. While these risks can be mitigated through collaborative initiatives like Connectivity Centres, this depends on new “relational” skills, knowledge and competencies which do not currently exist in construction. In conclusion, when social procurement policy requirements are excessive and imposed top-down, with little understanding of the construction industry's compliance capacity, intended social outcomes of these policies are unlikely to be achieved. Originality/value: This research draws on theories of cross-sector collaboration developed in the realm of public sector management to address the lack of research into how the new cross-sector partnerships encouraged by emerging social procurement policies work in the construction industry. Contributing to the emerging literature on cross-sector collaboration, the findings expose the many challenges of working in cross-sector partnerships in highly transitionary project-based environments like construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; construction industry; corporate social responsibility; intermediaries; risk management; social procurement |
| Index terms: | construction firm, profit, policy design, stability, information asymmetry, focus group, connectivity, procurement policy, compliance, policy instrument, thematic analysis, construction spending, methodology, collaboration, public sector, procurement strategy, employment, partnership, case study, social enterprise, intermediary, recruitment, construction industry, implementation, corporate social responsibility, risk management, social value |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, risk assessment, policy studies, business, organization, transaction economics, public policy, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, management, structural engineering, research methods, health safety and environment, methods and analysis, partnership management, networking, sociology, administrative law, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Governance, Procurement, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here