How employment-focused social procurement tackles health inequities: An investigation of Australia’s construction industry using determinants of health theory

Suchowerska, R; Loosemore, M and Barraket, J (2024) How employment-focused social procurement tackles health inequities: An investigation of Australia’s construction industry using determinants of health theory. Construction Management and Economics, 42(11-12), pp. 977-991. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

With public and private clients in the construction industry increasingly using social procurement to achieve their social responsibility goals, it is important to develop theory-informed approaches for understanding how and to what extent social procurement creates social value. The research presented in this article uses social determinants of health (SDOH) theory to develop a case study of an employment-focused social procurement initiative in Australia’s construction industry. The case study shows how the employment-focused social procurement initiative used cross-sector intermediation to alleviate structural barriers to employment, including siloing in the employment services sector, unsupported pathways from training into employment in construction, and negative stereotypes of people who face structural barriers to employment. Using SDOH theory, the paper frames these barriers to employment as 'upstream' and 'midstream' structural determinants of health inequities. The research finds that the initiative’s impacts on determinants of health inequities are enabled and limited by commercial factors including project location and duration, status of the principal contractor, and insider knowledge of timing and requirements of new jobs.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Australia; construction; employment; health inequities; social procurement; social value; case study
Index terms: social responsibility, face, principal contractor, social value, investigation, determinant, construction industry, duration, case study, stereotype, Australia, employment
Subjects: practitioner, data collection methods, risk assessment, psychology, Geography, health safety and environment, management, industry analysis, project controls, sociology
Topics: Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Time Control, Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Human Resources
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