Assessing the impact of social procurement policies for indigenous people

Denny-Smith, G; Williams, M and Loosemore, M (2020) Assessing the impact of social procurement policies for indigenous people. Construction Management and Economics, 38(12), pp. 1139-1157. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Governments of highly developed western nations with colonised Indigenous populations such as Australia, Canada and South Africa are increasingly turning to social procurement policies in an attempt to solve social inequities between Indigenous people and other citizens. They seek to use policies and funds attached to infrastructure development and construction to encourage private sector companies to provide training, employment and business opportunities for Indigenous people in the communities in which construction occurs. This paper outlines the rise of these policies and their origins, and critiques their connection to Indigenous people’s human rights, impact measurement, evaluation and accountability mechanisms. In doing so this paper also explores benefits and potential of social procurement policies, as well as risks. Drawing on insights from an Aboriginal-developed evaluation framework, Ngaa-bi-nya, and Indigenous Standpoint Theory, this paper highlights Indigenous peoples' definitions of value and outlines their relevance to social procurement. Introducing the notion of cultural counterfactuals into social impact measurement research, it also offers a new conceptual framework to enable policymakers and practitioners to more accurately account for social procurement value and impact, including Indigenous people’s notions of social value.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Australia; counterfactuals; social impact measurement; social procurement; social value; sustainable procurement
Index terms: critique, Australia, Canada, employment, private sector, social value, social impact, evaluation, procurement policy, infrastructure development, accountability, drawing, impact measurement, practitioner, human rights, population, conceptual framework, South Africa
Subjects: practitioner, criminal law, environmental impact, evaluation and assessment methods, data analysis and analytics, technical documentation, public policy, infrastructure engineering, Geography, theoretical framing, management, liability law, industry analysis, sociology, demography
Topics: Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Governance, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

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