Candel, M; Gustavsson, T K and Eriksson, P E (2019) Beyond national building regulations: Exploring public-private negotiations over sustainability requirements. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Construction procurement can be understood as a governance mechanism for incorporating various requirements in construction projects to initiate change and innovation. Research on procurement often focuses on clients, such as housing developers, and their procurement of suppliers (e.g. consultants and contractors), and the effects of various procurement strategies. However, construction projects are also governed by mechanisms put in place during the early phases, before the actual procurement process takes place.Research on local sustainability governance has revealed that municipalities govern construction projects through requirements in municipal land allocation agreements, which extend current legal requirements, to improve sustainability and building performance. Housing developers are thereby placed in a position where they are both governed by the municipality while at the same time having the power and position to govern suppliers through their procurement. Since clients are often considered and proposed as change agents and innovation champions, due to their power to formulate requirements when procuring suppliers, it becomes important to explore how they are governed during these early phases.This paper builds on an on-going case study of a major sustainability-profiled urban development project in Sweden. The purpose is to explore how housing developers are governed by municipal land allocations and how this influences their procurement strategies and possibilities to act as change agents and innovation champions. The empirical material consists of interviews with housing developers and municipality representatives, observations of meetings and seminars, and documents. Tentative findings illustrate that the housing developer’s role as a change agent and innovation champion is complex and affected by municipal requirements. Furthermore, the conditions during procurement are dependent on preceding early phase negotiations between housing developers and the municipality. Accordingly, the understanding of the client’s role as a change agent and innovation champion needs a wider perspective that incorporates the governance of local authorities.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction procurement; construction client; innovation; local governance; urban development programs |
| Index terms: | municipality, agreements, negotiation, housing developer, land, agent, construction procurement, urban development, documents, program, construction project, construction client, procurement strategy, Sweden, local authority, building performance, governance, procurement process, case study, interview, building regulation |
| Subjects: | software systems, professional development, urban design, production management, Geography, sociology, conflict resolution, quality assurance, administrative law, regulatory law, business, data collection methods, practitioner, real estate economics, contract formation, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Contract Administration, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Procurement, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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