My take on a sustainable procurement course, between theory and practice
In early March, I followed a two-day course on sustainable procurement last week. I came with limited knowledge about the practicalities and implications. What drew me to it was the potential leverage private actors could have on their suppliers to push them to adopt more sustainable practices in the selection process with surveys and exclusion criteria, but also in supporting them in their journey through certifications or other assessments. This exercise would not only benefit the company itself and stakeholder management but also its double materiality reporting by strengthening its ecosystem and engaging in a virtuous cycle.
In theory.
The reality, as the course and exchanges with practitioners made clear, is more complicated. Both public and private sectors experience the same fundamental caveat: suppliers tend to be chosen on the basis of prior experience or personal connections rather than objective criteria. The public sector is more regulated given its accountability to public money. Below a certain spending threshold, no tender needs to be published. Yet organisations can remain under that threshold by dividing projects into smaller contracts. The private sector faces less scrutiny, but both converge on the same principles when it comes to sustainable procurement, as outlined in ISO 20400: global cost accounting, focus on needs, innovative solutions, and continuous improvement.
This is precisely where we can observe the discrepancy between the theory and reality: between procurement driven by habit and relationships, and the ambition of responsible procurement as defined by ISO 20400 (4.1): procurement that maximises positive environmental, social, and economic impacts throughout its life cycle, and aims to minimise negative ones.
A further barrier to transparent and sustainable procurement is the proliferation of labels. Labels were designed to make conditions of production understandable at a glance. They provide a guarantee of quality, sustainability, and compliance with international norms, sometimes verified by a third-party auditor. In practice, however, the market has become fragmented between organisations that can afford certification and those, particularly SMEs, that cannot. This creates a double problem: SMEs are excluded not only from certification but from supplier lists, as risk-averse buyers default to familiar names. Labels risk becoming a "buy your way to compliance" mechanism, reinforcing a vicious cycle in which smaller suppliers with relevant expertise are continuously sidelined for lack of resources.
Part of the confusion might also stem from conflating three distinct things, as I learnt during the course:
- Product labels (FSC, Fair Trade) certify what is being sold
- Process certifications (ISO 20400 as guidance, ISO 53001 as certification) certify how an organisation procures
- Supplier assessments (EcoVadis, CDP) evaluate the supplier's practices
Yet we should keep our eyes on the horizon. ISO 53001 is currently in development and could meaningfully shift the landscape by shifting the focus from what is purchased to how purchasing decisions are made, aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. If widely adopted, this standard could bring clarity to supply chain strategy, strengthen alignment with sustainable principles, and ESG reporting frameworks.