Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Community social capital, political values, or organizational capacity?

Indicators of engagement in sustainable public procurement at the
local level
Evelyn Rodriguez-Plesa a, Ana-Maria Dimand b, Mohamad G. Alkadry c, *
a
North Carolina Central University, USA
b
Boise State University, USA
c
University of Connecticut, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Zhifu Mi Local governments are responsible for addressing environmental, social, and economic issues affecting their
communities. Sustainable public procurement (SPP) offers a mechanism for local governments to address such
Keywords: issues by strategically utilizing government funds to efficiently and effectively achieve policy outcomes while
Community social capital also promoting the wellbeing of the environment, economy, and society. While sustainability has become an
Sustainable procurement
increasingly popular approach among governmental actors and the general public, the factors driving local
Local government
governments’ sustainability efforts are largely unclear. This study introduces novel measures of SPP (i.e., Green
Public management
Organizational behavior Procurement Index and Social Equity Index) and utilizes Poisson regressions to analyze procurement practices of
264 local governments to determine how community social capital, political values, and organizational capacity
affect local government SPP implementation. Findings demonstrate that support from executive leadership and
political ideology are significant predictors in two models of SPP. However, there are other factors present in the
operating environment that impact green and social equity procurement differently. This research has impli­
cations for social capital theory and for local government sustainability efforts demonstrating the importance of
organizational commitment and different factors in the community to address green and social equity spheres of
sustainability.

1. Introduction cleaner production and help prevent environmental degradation in

Communities face significant challenges related to climate change
and socio-economic disparities. To address these issues, local govern­
ments have slowly incorporated sustainability principles into their
policy-making (Laurian and Crawford, 2016). Public procurement is a
key tool for sustainability advancement through sustainable public
procurement practices (SPP) (Alkadry et al. 2019). Total government
spending accounts for 32% of the Gross Domestic Product in the United
States (Office of Management and Budget n.d.). Due to the sizable nature
of this spending, it has the potential to generate sizable influence,
particularly through the application of SPP. Specifically, by adopting
SPP approaches, government spending can be engineered to produce
social, economic, and environmental externalities. Government pro­
curement practices influence production and consumption patterns.
Therefore, by using tools such as SPP, governments may contribute to
addition to improving the economic and social wellbeing of the
community.
Research on sustainability has addressed different facets of policy
and public action, including commitment of governments (e.g., Saha
and Paterson, 2008), administrative structures (e.g., Prier et al., 2016),
collaboration (e.g., Swann, 2017), civic participation (e.g., Portney and
Berry, 2010), and factors driving engagement (e.g., Opp and Saunders,
2012). However, specific research on sustainable public procurement
(SPP) remains scarce (Hsueh et al., 2019). SPP is the process of strate­
gically utilizing government funds to efficiently and effectively achieve
policy outcomes while also promoting the wellbeing of the environment,
economy, and society (Prier and McCue, 2009).
The spheres of SPP (environment, economy, and society) have
mainly been examined collectively, but in varying contexts (e.g., Wang
et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014; Prier at al, 2016; Alkadry et al., 2019).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: malkadry@uconn.edu (M.G. Alkadry).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130556
Received 10 August 2020; Received in revised form 5 December 2021; Accepted 14 January 2022
Available online 21 January 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al.
While there are benefits to examining them together, there are clear
differences between the environmental, and economic and social
spheres. The economic and social spheres focus on value systems, and
economic opportunity and adequate living standards for all (Fiorino,
2010). Whereas, environmental sustainability focuses on elements of
health, ecosystem and resources (Fiorino, 2010). Therefore, the current
research decouples sustainability using two models to examine envi­
ronmental and social equity components individually. Economic and
social components are aggregated due to their focus on human elements.
This paper identifies and contributes to three main gaps in SPP
literature: measurement, context, and operating environment. First,
sustainable public procurement is an interconnected and interdependent
system consisting of three dimensions — environmental, social, and
economic. Yet, the environmental component of SPP captures most of
extant literature’s focus (Grandia and Kruyen, 2020). Equally important
though, the economic dimension focuses on the material welfare of all
people (Fiorino, 2010); and the social dimension focuses on social issues
emphasizes an “effective, stable, and democratic governance” (Fiorino,
2010, p. S80). Both, the social and economic components, have over­
lapping elements because of the people-centered focus. Yet, there has
been limited attention directed to the social and economic elements. The
concept of sustainability is decoupled to capture specific effects on
environmental, social, and economic components.
Second, this research contributes to the understanding of SPP in the
U.S. local government context. Most studies have examined European
contexts (e.g., Preuss, 2007; Grandia and Kruyen, 2020; Meehan and
David, 2014), international assessment (e.g., Brammer and Walker,
2011), and Latin America (e.g., Delmonico, 2018), while the United
States context has received less attention (Cheng et al., 2018). The fac­
tors driving SPP implementation among U.S. local governments remain
unclear.
Third, this research accounts for the operating environment of SPP
and examines the impact of organizational capacity, political values and
community social capital on SPP. U.S. local governments are expected to
be accountable and responsive to problems affecting their communities.
Therefore, engagement in SPP might be subject to pressures within the
organization and those that cross organizational lines. Because of the
complexities of SPP, it is important to account for the political system
affecting SPP. Incorporation of the political system into SPP research
contributes to the understanding of how local governments maintain
“effective systems of governance” (Fiorinio 2010, S79). Therefore, the
current research examines factors that interact within this system.
Organizational capacity and political values may be predictors of sus­
tainable procurement engagement at the local level (Alkadry et al.,
2019). For a successful strategy adoption and effective implementation
of sustainability policy community engagement and cooperation with
external groups (i.e., social capital) are of chief importance (Lubell and
Allen, 2007).
While the importance of social capital for effective public service (e.
g., Aldrich and Michelle, 2015; Andrews and Gene, 2014) is widely
discussed in public administration literature, little is known about the
intersection of community social capital and SPP. Therefore, the present
study posits the following research question: What drives local govern­
ment engagement in sustainable public procurement? Specifically, this
research examines whether sustainable public procurement is a function
of organizational capacity, political values, and social capital individu­
ally, or a collaborative effort between social capital and local govern­
ment organizations, resulting in SPP policy action.
To address the aforementioned research question, this paper is
among the first to apply social capital theory and to empirically analyze
the effect of community social capital, regional socio-economics, polit­
ical values, and organizational capacity on sustainable procurement in
the public sector. The study draws on data from a national survey of
local government procurement agencies in the United States. The pre­
dictors are organized in four groupings: (1) organizational characteris­
tics (i.e., local government’s organizational capacity and organizational
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556
support for sustainable procurement), (2) regional political values (3)
social capital index (i.e., aggregate count of civic organizations, voter
turnout, census response rate, and number of domestic non-profit or­
ganizations), and (4) contextual environment (i.e., demographics and
regional socio-economic conditions). The dependent variable is a com­
posite measure of 16 different sustainable procurement activities that
typically compose sustainable procurement efforts within a municipal­
ity. These 16 activities fit within three sustainability categories: eco­
nomic, social equity, and environmental.
The results show that sustainable public procurement practices are
not driven by a single factor. In general, local government engagement
in SPP practices is a function of executive support and political ideology.
However, the results point to the fact that green aspects and social eq­
uity aspects of sustainability are driven by different factors. For
example, community social capital influences only green procurement
engagement. This study expands the understanding of social capital
theory to sustainable public procurement practices and outlines strate­
gies for practice to enhance SPP in local governments. The following
section first provides a review of public procurement and SPP literature.
Second, the article describes the role of the organization in sustainable
procurement, the link between social capital and SPP, and the influence
of context on sustainable procurement practices. Third, the article de­
scribes the data and methodology employed, followed by results and
discussion. The conclusion highlights the implications of our findings for
the advancement of theory and practice, limitations, and guidance for
future research.
2. Literature review
Public procurement is the process by which a government organi­
zation obtains goods and services to fulfill organizational needs and
policy objectives (Prier and McCue, 2009). “Procurement is called sus­
tainable when it integrates requirement, specifications and criteria that
are compatible and in favor of the protection of the environment, and in
support of economic development, while also accounting for other so­
cietal considerations, such as social justice and equity” (Prier et al.,
2016, 313). The practice of sustainable public procurement (SPP) de­
notes intentional spending and active policy making through its adop­
tion and implementation activities.
Local government organizations are responsible for the wellbeing of
their communities. Due to their proximity to constituents, these orga­
nizations play a critical role in addressing community demands, neces­
sities, and problems (Wang et al., 2014). SPP involves environment,
social, and economic interdependencies and, as such, may produce
wide-ranging impacts within a community (e.g., transportation, envi­
ronment, economic development, parks and recreation, public health,
land use) (Fiorino, 2010). Leuenberger and Wakin (2007) indicated that
sustainability is often a collaborative effort between the government
organization and the public to benefit public interest. Citizen groups,
interest groups, and other similar groups alert policymakers to problems
affecting the community, which can initiate sustainability efforts (Wang
et al., 2014).
Multiple factors affect SPP adoption and implementation (Raj et al.,
2020). SPP also applies differently across economies and sectors (Raj
et al., 2020). Prier et al. (2016) found that engagement in sustainable
procurement is quite random and that engagement in SPP does not bear
similarities across government entities and varies across organizations
when examining level of government and organization size. In their
sample, many agencies had refrained from aggressive SPP imple­
mentation (Prier et al., 2016). Recent studies have also noted variation
across public procurement projects within institutions (Grandia, 2016).
Overall, this could signal that engagement in SPP is subject to pressures
that cross organizational lines.
Two important literature reviews assessed previous research on
green (i.e., sustainable) public procurement. First, Cheng et al. (2018)
reviewed missing concepts and future trends in green public
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al.
procurement (GPP) research. The study noted that research in this area
started with a general assessment of GPP practices and then targeted
specific areas (Cheng et al., 2018). Additionally, initial research focused
on GPP processes, while subsequent studies examined the implementa­
tion and impact of such policies (Cheng et al., 2018). Cheng et al. (2018)
observed that the literature largely neglects the managerial and insti­
tutional dynamics needed to advance GPP implementation (Cheng et al.,
2018; Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020). Second, Sönnichsen and Clement
(2020) aimed to build a foundation for future research in circular public
procurement practices by reviewing existing literature on sustainable
public procurement. Circular public procurement practices encourage
environmental, social, and ethical production and consumption (Raki­
tovac and Vukmano 2011, as cited by Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020).
Sönnichsen and Clement’s (2020) results show that engagement in cir­
cular public procurement may be correlated with three main factors: (1)
organizational structure (e.g., knowledge and awareness around the
concept, organizational resources and leadership support), (2) individ­
ual beliefs and values of public procurement official, and (3) operational
and organizational tools (e.g., process and prioritization, award and
evaluation criterion, the use of standards, standardization and legal
aspects) (Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020).
SPP has received increasing attention in the public administration
literature; however, local government SPP implementation has not been
studied extensively (Roman, 2017; Cheng et al., 2018; Sönnichsen and
Clement, 2020), with few studies focusing on the context of U.S. local
governments (Cheng et al., 2018). To better understand what promotes
local government engagement in SPP, the present study examines the
operational and environmental context of SPP. SPP is multifaceted,
comprising elements of environmental, social equity, and economic
development (Raj et al., 2020). SPP pairs sustainability and contracting
processes. Researchers have noted the political nature of both where
there are often competing priorities (Brown et al., 2006). To better un­
derstand the factors driving and impacting SPP, the present study ex­
amines social capital as a key driver based on the collaborative effort
between the community and organizational actors which is often
required in the promotion of sustainability efforts. Previous research has
stressed the importance of awareness and knowledge for adoption and
implementation of sustainable procurement practices (Brammer and
Walker, 2011; Grandia, 2016; Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020; Grandia
and Kruyen, 2020; Etse et al., 2021). Community engagement influences
policy implementation and sustainability strategies (Lubell and Allen,
2007). Specifically, social capital, through social networks organizations
may increase their awareness on the newest trends in decision making as
well as obtain the tools needed for their adoption and implementation.
2.1. The role of the organization in sustainable public procurement
Local governments are responsible for addressing environmental,
social, and economic issues in their communities. Previous research has
noted the impact of the organization on the engagement of SPP, and
described organizational capacity as key for SPP and other sustainability
programs (Homsy and Warner, 2015; Alkadry et al., 2019). However,
capacity varies across organizations (Homsy and Warner, 2015; Alkadry
et al., 2019). Measures of organizational capacity that can impact gov­
ernment initiatives include hierarchy, and fiscal and technical capacity
(Andrews and George, 2007; Homsy and Warner, 2015). Andrews and
George (2007) noted that hierarchy and organizational structure impact
strategic decision-making in various contexts. The potential for influ­
ence and conflict in the decision-making process is circumvented when
there are less levels of hierarchy (Andrews and George, 2007). Homsy
and Warner (2015) found that staff dedicated to sustainability is sig­
nificant for the adoption of sustainability policies. Larger organizations
are more likely to have the ability to assign staff to specific programing,
such as sustainability. Research has indicated that fiscal capacity is
another important factor for SPP adoption in smaller cities (Homsy and
Warner, 2015). Overall, greater organizational resources promote
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556
sustainability action.
Technical capacity describes the knowledge base needed to drive SPP
from within the organization. This may come in the form of dedicated
offices for sustainability efforts or can manifest through individual at­
tributes such as knowledge and skills of procurement professionals
within the organization (Wang et al., 2014). The professionalization of
public procurement through certifications (i.e., Certified Public Pro­
curement Officer, Certified Professional Public Buyer) signifies a level of
competency, expertise, and esteem in the field (O’Toole and Meier,
2014; Universal Public Procurement Certification Council, 2019). This
expertise equips procurement professionals with a broad range of
knowledge, including procurement innovations and processes. Pro­
curement expertise may support and even drive SPP efforts, thus adding
to the organization’s capacity to engage in SPP. Based on the extant
literature outlined above, we first hypothesize the following:
H1. Greater organizational capacity increases local government
engagement in sustainable public procurement.
H1a. The less levels of hierarchy between the chief procurement offi­
cer (CPO) and the chief executive officer (CEO), the more likely for local
government engagement in sustainable public procurement.
H1b. : Higher annual procurement volumes are positively related to
local government engagement in sustainable public procurement.
H1c. Larger number of purchasing staff is positively related to local
government engagement in sustainable public procurement.
H1d. Certification requirement for procurement managers is posi­
tively related to local government engagement in sustainable public
procurement.
While organizational capacity facilitates an entity’s ability to engage
in SPP, organizational leadership is key in mobilizing fiscal and tech­
nical resources and driving the organizational mission to achieve sus­
tainable outcomes (Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020). Leaders are to
develop the vision that helps to mobilize the organization and its
personnel (Wang et al. 2012, 2014). In doing so, they utilize varying
strategies that aid in garnering support for and aid in implementation of
sustainability policies (Wang et al. 2012, 2014). Wang et al. (2014)
noted that the “administrator’s role in sustainability can itself be defined
as the activities or subroles of (1) involving citizens in visioning and
planning, (2) enhancing technical expertise in implementation, (3)
mobilizing financial resources, and (4) developing managerial execution
capacity” (344). While the present study does not examine specific ac­
tions of the organization’s executive leader, it does capture the extent to
which the executive leader prioritizes SPP practices. We hypothesize
that support from the executive leader is key to engagement in SPP.
H1e. Support from executive leadership increases an organization’s
engagement in sustainable public procurement.
2.2. Social capital and sustainable public procurement
Modern society has experienced a paradigm shift from ‘government’
to ‘governance’, with emphasis on cooperation, networking, and insti­
tution building and maintenance (Frederickson et al., 2016). In this
context, social capital has gained significant interest and is associated
with “structures such as trust, social networks, and civic norms” (Doh,
2014, 105). Social capital refers to a positive relationship between
government and associations and other voluntary agencies (Doh, 2014)
and is positively related to achievement of performance goals (Andrews
and Gene, 2014). Networks and broader social structures provide a wide
range of benefits to participants. Social capital enhances a local gov­
ernment’s ability to address policy problems through the potential for
collaborative efforts and consensus by external stakeholders of the or­
ganization (Andrews and Gene, 2014).
The social capital concept was first introduced in sociology schol­
arship by Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) but has gained
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al.
popularity via Putnam’s (1995, 2000) work, Bowling Alone (Ganapati,
2012). Putnam (1995) defined the notion broadly as “features of social
organizations, such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate action
and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, 67). Scholars have
identified three main social capital types: bonding, bridging, and linking
(Aldrich and Michelle, 2015). Bonding social capital refers to the con­
nections between emotionally close individuals, friends, or family. This
strong connection represents a tool for social support in times of need,
such as disaster (Aldrich and Michelle, 2015). Bridging social capital is a
resource that provides individuals access to others less similar to them,
such as people at their workplace, individuals in civil and political in­
stitutions, parent-teacher associations, sports and interest groups, and
educational and religious groups (Ganapati, 2012, Aldrich and Michelle,
2015). Linking social capital provides the general public access to those in
power (Aldrich and Michelle, 2015). In addition, Tantardini and Kroll
(2015) note the existence of two types of social capital: organizational
social capital and community social capital. The present study focuses
on the latter.
Social capital has been used to mobilize policy implementation in
several contexts. Public administration literature has focused on linking
social capital to economic development and growth (e.g., Woolcock,
1998; Engbers and Rubin, 2018; Lang and Hornburg, 1998), quality of
government (e.g., Rice and Sumberg, 1997, Putnam, 2000, Rice, 2001,
Knack, 2002, as cited by Doh, 2014), voting participation (e.g., Knack,
1992), trust in government (e.g., Brehm and Rahn, 1997, as cited by
Doh, 2014), the public procurement function (e.g., Erridge and Greer,
2002; Meehan and David, 2014), disaster management (e.g., Ganapati,
2012, Kapucu, 2006a; 2006b), public sector reform (Musso et al., 2006),
volunteerism (e.g., Simon and Wang, 2002, as cited by Ganapati, 2012;
Brewer, 2003), and performance management (Tantardini and Kroll,
2015, Andrews and Gene, 2014). Specifically related to sustainable
procurement practices, Meehan and David (2014) identify a relationship
between structural social capital and sustainable purchasing in the UK
social housing organizations. Sustainability knowledge creation and
sharing encouragement within the organization as well as with the
supply chain increases the sustainable procurement activity (Meehan
and David, 2014). Ultimately, little is known about how community
social capital impacts SPP practices.
Community groups and other non-governmental organizations are
part of the governance system driving policy action. Participation in
community groups is a particularly important facet of social capital
because these groups facilitate coordination and cooperation between
members (Brewer, 2003). Previous research has demonstrated that so­
cial capital impacts government responsiveness and effectiveness (Rice,
2001; Doh, 2014). Lang and Hornburg (1998) noted that social capital is
also key to improving quality of life in the community. Community
groups are motivated to achieve solutions for their own benefit and
survival of their community (Homsy and Warner, 2015). Civic organi­
zations and religious and nonprofit groups also have the potential to
shape government and quality of services by means of social capital
(Brewer, 2003; Doh, 2014). It is possible for shared norms to be limited
to individual community groups, rather than a network of groups.
In a similar fashion, social capital pushes local government to be
responsive to the needs of the community, including environmental,
social, and economic needs. SPP seeks to holistically address these
needs. Lubell and Allen (2007) noted the importance of social capital is
to address “collective action problems where the costs and benefits of
behavior are influenced by decisions of multiple actors in the social
system” (p. 767). While SPP is a function of local government, it seeks to
address issues impacting environmental, social, and economic needs of
the community. Cooperation and interaction with community groups
may drive policy and shape strategies aiming to address sustainability
(Lubell and Allen, 2007). The present study uses the social capital
construct to capture local policy networks because social capital in­
volves sharing information about policy and driving cultural change
among membership. In this case, social capital together with
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556
government actors enable a cooperative approach to SPP policy. Thus,
we posit that there is a clear relationship between the multifaceted
measures of social capital (Rupasingha et al., 2006, with updates) and
local government engagement in SPP. Thus, we present our second
hypothesis.
H2. Community social capital positively impacts local government
engagement in sustainable public procurement.
H2a. The larger the number of civic groups in a community, the more
likely that local governments will engage in sustainable public
procurement.
H2b. The larger the voter turnout in a community, the more likely that
local governments will engage in sustainable public procurement.
H2c. The larger the census response rate in a community, the more
likely that local governments will engage in sustainable public
procurement.
H2d. The larger the number of domestic non-profit organizations in a
community, the more likely that local governments will engage in sus­
tainable public procurement.
2.3. Contextual influences on sustainability procurement practices
Building on the urban planning literature, we analyzed how the
context in which an organization operates influences engagement in SPP
(Wang et al., 2012). Sustainability issues function within a highly po­
litical environment. Saha (2009) posited a link between citizens’ polit­
ical propensity and government’s engagement in sustainability
practices. Findings from Alkadry et al. (2019) support the significant
impact of political values in the SPP policy area. The political propensity
of the population is a proxy for the community’s political ideology
(Alkadry et al., 2019). The political ideology of the community in­
fluences the goals and priorities of local government agencies, as these
agencies are responsive to their residents’ preferences (ArnoldDouglas,
1990; Saha, 2009; Alkadry et al., 2019). Political ideology in the present
study is captured by the percent of the communities’ vote for Hillary
Clinton (a Democrat) in the 2016 Presidential election. Political pro­
pensity in this sense captures a community’s political preference.
Additionally, citizen engagement is essential to procuring the financial
capacity for sustainability practices. Previous studies on sustainability
have established a correlation between political ideology and sustain­
ability. While investigating why some cities engage in sustainability
practices more than others, Wang et al. (2012) found a statistical sig­
nificance between sustainability and citizens’ ideology in U.S. cities.
Supporting these findings, Alkadry et al. (2019) reported high statistical
significance between citizens’ liberal values, as measured by the vote for
the Democratic candidate in the 2016 Presidential election, and local
government engagement in SPP practices. We expect that findings from
the present study will mirror previous findings demonstrating the
impact of political ideology on sustainability efforts of local govern­
ments and advance the third hypothesis of the study:
H3. Cities with more politically progressive residents are more likely
to engage in sustainable public procurement practices.
Additionally, the decision to engage in sustainability practices may
be simply influenced by environmental pressures, determined by envi­
ronmental degradation and resource exhaustion (Wang et al., 2012).
Furthermore, as different groups have different needs, the demographic
composition of the population that a certain government serves may
influence engagement in sustainability practices (Portney, 2003; Wang
et al., 2012). While the literature has scarcely examined the relationship
between environmental pressures, population demographics, and
engagement in sustainability practices (e.g., Portney, 2003; Wang et al.,
2012), these factors have been shown to influence sustainability (e.g.,
Krause, 2011; Alkadry et al., 2019). Therefore, the present study
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556

accounts for environmental pressures and population demographics in

the empirical analysis as control variables. Table 1
Resource depletion, environmental degradation, and social and Dependent variables descriptive statistics.
economic inequalities affect communities all over the world (Wang Index Indexes Yes No Mean SD
et al., 2012). Wang et al. (2012) posited that cities’ engagement in value (1) (0)

sustainability practices may simply be a response to these environmental Green Procurement Index
pressures. Local resources and needs are noted as possible drivers of 1 Energy Conservation 169 95 0.64 0.481
2 Recyclability 144 120 0.55 0.499
sustainability practices (Portney, 2003). Building on the urban planning
3 Water Pollution 75 189 0.28 0.452
literature, we analyzed the influence of environmental pressures on the 4 Air Quality 66 198 0.25 0.434
engagement in SPP practices in local governments in the United States 5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 28 236 0.11 0.309
(Wang et al., 2012; Portney, 2003). 6 Reduced Packaging 33 231 0.13 0.331
Community needs related to regional economic factors and popula­ 7 Volatile Organic Compounds 29 235 0.11 0.313
8 Biodiversity 9 255 0.03 0.182
tion demographics likely influence engagement in sustainability prac­ Social Equity Index
tices (Portney, 2003; Krause, 2011; Alkadry et al., 2019). For instance, 1 Vendor’s Worker Health Insurance 48 216 0.18 0.386
cities with serious social problems will be less able to prioritize sus­ Coverage
tainability (Portney, 2003). A city with a less affluent population will 2 Vendor’s Working Conditions of 74 190 0.28 0.450
Workers
generate less revenue, which impacts their organizational capacity
3 Ethically Sourced Items 108 156 0.41 0.493
(Homsy and Waner 2015). Also, the needs of the rich conflict with the 4 Living Wage Requirements 64 200 0.24 0.429
needs of the poor in certain cities (Homsy and Warner, 2015). In line 5 Local Workers 114 150 0.43 0.496
with previous research on this topic (e.g., Terman and Smith, 2018; 6 Use of Women-owned Vendors/Sub- 74 190 0.28 0.450
Krause, 2011), we control for regional socio-economic indicators (i.e., vendors
7 Use of Minority-owned Vendors/ 89 175 0.34 0.474
median household income, percent manufacturing labor, area demo­ Sub-vendors
graphicsmedian age, percent African American, percent Hispanic, 8 Use of Veteran-owned vendors/Sub- 50 214 0.19 0.393
percent with bachelor’s degree or higher, and population density). vendors

3. Data & methodology

and the expanded social sustainability index, Poisson regression
modeling was utilized to fit and analyze the models. Tests for equi­
SPP is examined using two independent models: green procurement
dispersion were conducted to confirm the suitability of Poisson regres­
and social equity procurement. Data for this research were obtained
sion. 2SPSS was used for the analysis.
from several sources and empirically analyzed to determine the effect of
social capital on SPP in its operational environment. Data for organi­
3.1. Dependent variables
zational characteristics (i.e., hierarchy, annual procurement volume,
number of purchasing staff, certification of procurement heads, and the
There are two dependent variables, Green Procurement Index
support for SPP from executive leadership) and SPP were obtained from
(Cronbach Alpha = 0.700) and Social Equity Index (Cronbach’s Alpha =
a 2018 national survey of local government procurement agencies in the
0.721), which are composite measures of 16 different sustainable public
United States. The survey was sent to 1,454 local government member
procurement activities that typically compose the SPP effort within a
organizations of the National Institute of Government Purchasing
local government. In the survey, responding organizations were asked
(NIGP). Four hundred and three procurement representatives replied,
which sustainable procurement measures they currently include in their
yielding a 28% response rate for this study. Not all respondents
procurement practices. They were given a list of 16 practices that belong
answered every question on the survey. After casewise elimination of
under either green or social equity components of sustainability. Re­
incomplete surveys, the final model includes 264 cases.
spondents indicated whether they utilize each of these practices. ‘No’
Data for social capital (i.e., voter turnout, census response rate, and
was coded as 0 and ‘Yes’ was coded as 1. The resulting final indexes were
number of domestic nonprofit organizations, and number of civic or­
the sum or count of the items included under each index. Table 1 lists
ganizations) were obtained from a 2014 database that was created by
these activities present in the sample. The green procurement index
Pennsylvania State University researchers (Rupasingha et al., 2006, with
includes eight variables [i.e., energy conservation, recyclability, water
updates).1 Data for contextual variables of the environment (i.e., pop­
pollution, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, reduced packaging,
ulation density and manufacturing industry size) and population de­
volatile organic compounds (VOC), biodiversity] and the social equity
mographics (i.e., resident median age, resident education level,
index includes the other eight variables (i.e., vendor’s worker health
household income, and percent African American and Hispanic) were
insurance coverage, vendor’s working conditions of workers, living
obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
wage requirements, local workers, ethically sourced items, use of
estimates for 2016. Finally, data on results of the 2016 presidential
women-owned vendors/sub-vendors, use of minority-owned vendors/
election votes by county were obtained from the Massachusetts Institute
sub-vendors, and use of Veteran-Owned vendors/sub-vendors). Table 2
of Technology (MIT) Election Data and Science Lab (2018).
includes the distribution of each of the items in the two indexes.
Quantitative methodology was employed in the present study to
determine which factors promote local government engagement in SPP.
The dependent variables in the model are aggregates of sustainable
public procurement activities in two main categories: green and social
equity activities. These are counts of SPP activities that an organization
conducts. Given the count/sum nature of the green procurement index 2
To account for the potential impact of spurious relationships, we ran
different regressions gradually adding to the model different blocks of variables
(e.g., first adding organizational variables, then the political environment, then
1
The data for social capital was drawn from a different year than the control social capital, and then the control variables). The results are consistent. In
variables; however, the authors believe that social capital in a community addition, we accounted for several factors in the environment that help address
builds over time and does not significantly change in a matter of a four years spurious relationships and allow for assessment of the impact of any variable in
difference. Additionally, all the independent variables precede the dependent the model beyond the effects of other variables (Sweet and Grace-Martin,
variable, which is one of the conditions for causality. 2012).

5
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556

Table 2 Table 3
Distribution for dependent variables. Predictors summary statistics.
Social Equity SP Index Green Procurement Index Predictors N Mean Std. Deviation
a
Index Value Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Organizational Characteristics
(Sum) Hierarchy Levels CPO-CEO 264 1.59 0.98
Annual Procurement Volume (log) 264 7.57 0.82
0 66 25.0 38 14.4
Purchasing Staff 264 6.49 9.57
1 62 23.5 79 29.9
Certification 264 0.43 0.50
2 47 17.8 62 23.5
Executive Leadership Support 264 3.16 1.11
3 40 15.2 40 15.2
Political Values
4 28 10.6 19 7.2
% Vote Clinton 264 48.21% 14.60%
5 9 3.4 10 3.8
Social Capital Index
6 10 3.8 11 4.2
Civic Groups per 1,000 264 0.94 0.39
7 2 0.8 2 0.8
Voter Turnout 264 0.69 0.07
8 N/A N/A 3 1.1
Census Response Rate 264 0.74 0.07
264 100 264 100
Number of Domestic Non-profit 264 3267.07 4006.63
Mean 1.92 2.09
Organizations
Median 2 2
St. Dev. 1.708 1.710 Control Variables
a Demographics
Index value is equal to the sum of all responses to items in that index (Yes = Population Density 264 1237,97 4451,23
1, No = 0). Median Age 264 38.49 4.21
% African American Population 264 13.69 13.56
% Hispanic Population 264 16.51 15.19
3.2. Independent and control variables
Education Level 264 32.00 10.27
Socio-economic indicators
The predictors utilized in our empirical analysis are organized in four Median Household Income 264 58283,14 14576.92
groupings: (1) organizational characteristics (i.e., number of hierarchi­ % Manufacturing 264 9.48 5.06
cal levels between CEO and CPO, annual procurement volume, number
of procurement staff, certification required for CPO, and support of
coefficients for the variables in the models.
organizational leaders for sustainable public procurement; (2) political
Additionally, variance inflation factors (VIF) were examined for the
values (i.e., % vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 presidential elections);
models, and multicollinearity was not detected. The Institute for Digital
and, (3) the social capital index (i.e., number of civic organizations per
Research & Education and UCLA notes that the VIFs above 10 warrant
1,000 residents, voter turnout, census response rate, and number of
further investigation for multicollinearity (UCLA Institute for Digital
domestic non-profit organizations). The certification requirement for
Research & Education, n.d.). The highest VIF detected was 3.789.
procurement professionals is the only dummy variable. All other vari­
Table 5 provides the VIFs.
ables are continuous variables and are predictors that the existing
literature suggested could play a role in predicting sustainability actions
4. Results
by organizations. The county level measurement of community social
capital is informed by Rupasingha et al. (2006, with updates). The au­
Two models—green procurement and social equity—were examined
thors noted that social capital comprises various measures, including
to determine which factors are correlated with local government
voter turnout, census response rate, number of domestic nonprofit or­
engagement in SPP. The independent variables in both models are
ganizations, and number of civic organizations. The fourth group of
composed of organizational, political values, social capital, population
variables in our framework are control variables, which account for area
demographics, and regional economic factors. Table 6 presents the
demographics (i.e., median age, percent African American, percent
Poisson regression model outputs and findings of both models are
Hispanic, percent with bachelor’s degree or higher, and population
detailed below.
density) and regional economic indicators (i.e., median household in­
Green Procurement Model Results. A total of 264 cases were
come, and percent manufacturing labor). Table 3 provides the descrip­
included in the final model. The model is significant at the 1% level or
tive statistics for the variables in this research.
better with a likelihood ratio chi-square of 75.897 and 17 degrees of
Remler and Van Ryzin (2015) note that correlations “measure the
freedom. In this model, there were a total of 5 statistically significant
strength and direction of a relationship between two variables” (pg.
predictors: support for SPP among leaders of the organization, percent
363). The correlation coefficients range from − 1 to 1. A coefficient of
vote for Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, number of civic or­
0 would signify that there is no relationship between variables; wheras,
ganizations per 1,000 residents, population density, and percent of Af­
a coefficient closer to 1 would signify a strong correlation. When there is
rican Americans in the county. For one unit increase of leadership
a strong correlation between two variables, then multicollinearity may
support for SPP, the expected count for engagement in green public
be present. Multicollinearity makes it difficult to estimate the indepen­
procurement activities increases by a factor of 1.23, holding other var­
dent effect of the variables that are strongly correlated. Tests for mul­
iables constant. For one unit increase in the percentage of residents
ticollinearity were performed for the variables in the Green Procurement
voting for Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections, the expected count
and Social Equity Procurement models and results demonstrate that no
for engagement in green public procurement activities increases by a
correlation was higher than 0.676. 3 Table 4 provides the correlation
factor of 1.02, holding other variables constant. For one unit increase in
the number of civic organizations per 1,000 residents, the expected
count for engagement in green public procurement activities increases
3
While the Pearson correlation between education level and median house­
by a factor of 1.26, holding other variables constant. For one unit in­
hold income is 0.676, previous literature supports inclusion of both variables in crease in population density, the expected count for engagement in
the SPP model (Homsy and Warner, 2015). Homsy and Warner (2015) find that green public procurement activities decreases by a factor of 1.00,
educational attainment of residents and per capita income is a significant factor holding other variables constant. For one unit increase in the percent
of environmental policy implementation in smaller cities. Since the SPP model African American in the county, the expected count for engagement in
is decoupled to examine green procurement and social equity independently, green public procurement activities decreases by a factor of 0.99,
the model maintains these variables to examine their relationship to green and holding other variables constant.
social equity procurement.

6
 E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al.
Table 4
Correlations.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Green Procurement Index 1

Hierarchy Levels CPO-CEO 0.007 1
Annual Procurement Volume (log) 0.144** 0.049 1
Purchasing Staff 0.164** 0.052 0.479*** 1
Certification 0.073 − 0.137** 0.101* 0.046 1
Executive Leadership Support 0.295*** − 0.007 0.037 0.139** 0.089* 1
% Vote Clinton 0.169** 0.133** 0.210*** 0.297*** − 0.022 0.088* 1
No. Establishments per 1,000 0.012 0.040 − 0.100* − 0.148** − 0.060 − 0.040 − 0.086* 1
Voter turnout (2nd factor) 0.049 0.019 0.084* − 0.062 − 0.029 0.132** − 0.008 0.019 1
Census response rate (3rd factor) − 0.028 − 0.056 0.016 − 0.047 − 0.067 − 0.021 − 0.091* − 0.017 0.359*** 1
No. domestic non-profit organizations (4th 0.100* 0.046 0.202*** 0.546*** − 0.062 0.055 0.519*** − 0.227*** − 0.124** − 0.009 1
factor)
Population Density (Log) 0.038 0.053 0.201** 0.327*** 0.017 0.046 0.561*** − 0.212*** 0.059 0.422*** 0.563*** 1
Median Age 0.030 − 0.075 − 0.066 − 0.156** 0.088* − 0.013 − 0.280*** 0.170** 0.186** − 0.203*** − 0.221*** − 0.288*** 1
Percent African American Population − 0.113** − 0.051 0.078 0.073 0.097* 0.015 0.399 0.094* − 0.074 − 0.081* 0.198** 0.358*** − 0.205*** 1
Percent Hispanic Population 0.064 0.092* − 0.031 0.193** 0.091* − 0.016 0.256*** − 0.395*** − 0.371*** − 0.351*** 0.281*** − 0.021 − 0.172** − 0.217*** 1
Pctbachelor’s degree or higher 0.086* 0.137** 0.144** 0.197** − 0.042 0.077 0.524*** 0.049 0.211*** 0.191** 0.320*** 0.519*** − 0.233*** 0.043 − 0.108** 1
Median Household Income 0.063 0.028 0.101* 0.093* 0.042 0.024 0.168** − 0.121** 0.291*** 0.329*** 0.104** 0.358*** − 0.173** − 0.144** − 0.103** 0.676*** 1
% Manufacturing − 0.032 − 0.012 − 0.161** − 0.180** − 0.166** − 0.051 − 0.265*** 0.172** 0.165** 0.444*** − 0.176** − 0.050 − 0.036 − 0.115** − 0.351*** − 0.224*** − 0.108** 1
7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Expanded Social Equity SP Index 1
Hierarchy Levels CPO-CEO 0.085* 1
Annual Procurement Volume (log) 0.06 0.049 1
Purchasing Staff 0.135** 0.052 0.48*** 1
Certification 0.03 − 0.137** 0.101* 0.047 1
Executive Leadership Support 0.164** − 0.007 0.037 0.139** 0.089* 1
% Vote Clinton 0.158** 0.133** 0.211*** 0.297*** − 0.023 0.088* 1
No. Establishments per 1,000 − 0.054 0.041 − 0.101* − 0.149** − 0.06 − 0.04 − 0.087* 1
Voter Turnout (2nd factor) − 0.061 0.02 0.084* − 0.063 − 0.03 0.132** − 0.008 0.019 1
Census Response Rate (3rd factor) − 0.039 − 0.056 0.017 − 0.047 − 0.068 − 0.021 − 0.091* − 0.018 0.36*** 1
No. Domestic Non-profit Organizations (4th 0.095* 0.047 0.203*** 0.547*** − 0.062 0.055 0.52*** − 0.227*** − 0.125** − 0.01 1
factor)
Population Density (Log) 0.06 0.102** 0.147** 0.44*** − 0.056 0.043 0.327*** 0.102** − 0.145** − 0.018 0.376*** 1

Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556

Median Age − 0.161** − 0.076 − 0.067 − 0.157** 0.089* − 0.014 − 0.281*** 0.17** 0.186** − 0.204*** − 0.221*** − 0.073 1
Percent African American Population 0.098* − 0.052 0.079 0.073 0.097* 0.016 0.400*** 0.094* 0.074 − 0.082* 0.199** 0.119** − 0.206*** 1
Percent Hispanic Population 0.087* 0.093* − 0.031 0.193** 0.092* − 0.016 0.256*** − 0.395*** − 0.372*** − 0.351*** 0.281*** 0.04 − 0.172** − 0.218*** 1
Pctbachelor’s Degree or Higher − 0.038 0.138** 0.144** 0.197** − 0.043 0.077 0.424*** 0.05 0.211*** 0.192** 0.320*** 0.287*** − 0.234*** 0.044 − 0.108** 1
Median Household Income − 0.047 0.029 0.102* 0.094* 0.042 0.024 0.168** − 0.122** 0.291*** 0.329*** 0.104** 0.124** − 0.173** − 0.144** − 0.104** 0.676*** 1
% Manufacturing − 0.066 − 0.013 − 0.162** − 0.18** − 0.166** − 0.051 − 0.265*** 0.172** 0.166** 0.444*** − 0.176** − 0.128** − 0.037 − 0.116** − 0.351*** − 0.224*** − 0.108** 1

***p < 0.000, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10.

E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556

Table 5 CEO, the expected count for engagement in social equity procurement
Variance inflation factors. activities increases by a factor of 1.09, holding other variables constant.
GreenProcurement Social Equity For one unit increase in support for leadership support for SPP, the ex­
Index Procurement Index pected count for engagement in social equity procurement activities
Hierarchy Levels CPO-CEO 1.090 1.089 increases by a factor of 1.13, holding other variables constant. For one
Annual Procurement Volume (log) 1.447 1.457 unit increase in the percentage of population voting for Clinton in the
Purchasing Staff 1.878 2.093 2016 elections, the expected count for engagement in social equity
Certification req at application: 1.157 1.156 procurement activities increases by a factor of 1.02, holding other var­
Heads of Central Purchasing
Office
iables constant. For one unit increase in median age, the expected count
Executive leaders in our jurisdiction 1.073 1.073 for engagement in social equity procurement activities decreases by a
prioritize Sustainable factor of 0.96, holding other variables constant. For one unit increase in
Procurement Practices education, the expected count for engagement in social equity pro­
% Vote Clinton 3.042 2.885
curement activities decreases by a factor of 0.97, holding other variables
No. Establishments per 1,000 1.503 1.434
Voter turnout (2nd factor) 1.594 1.587 constant.
Census response rate (3rd factor) 2.669 1.825
No. domestic non-profit 2.278 2.044 5. Discussion
organizations (4th factor)
Population Density (Log) 3.672 1.494
Median Age 1.546 1.517
The goal of this research is to understand what drives local govern­
Percent African American 2.258 1.995 ment engagement in sustainable public procurement in the United
Population States. The components of SPP (i.e., green procurement and social equity
Percent Hispanic Population 2.669 2.682 procurement) are examined as two dependent variables in two separate
Pctbachelor’s degree or higher 3.789 3.626
models. Overall, the results point to the fact that each element of sus­
Median Household Income 2.427 2.423
% Manufacturing 1.748 1.750 tainability (i.e., social equity and environmental protection) may be
driven by different factors. Decoupling the elements of sustainable
procurement into green and social equity categories provides insight
Social Equity Model Results. A total of 264 cases were included in into the fundamental differences between the two and helps to identify
the final model. The model was statistically significant at the 1% level or the ways each is impacted by organizational, political, and environ­
better with a likelihood ration chi-square of 43.194 and 17 degrees of mental factors. Please refer to Table 7 for the hypothesis analysis.
freedom. Five predictors were statistically significant: levels of hierar­ Organizational capacity is correlated with engagement in SPP,
chy between the CPO and CEO, support for SPP among leaders of the however different elements of organizational capacity impact SPP
organization, percent voting for Clinton in the 2016 presidential elec­ engagement differently. Social equity procurement practices are
tion, median age, and percent residents with a bachelor’s degree or impacted by the hierarchical structure of an organization, whereas not
higher. For one unit increase in levels of hierarchy between the CPO and GPP. Specifically, contrary to what it was expected, an increase in the

Table 6
Poisson regression results.
Predictors (1) (2)

Green Procurement Index Social Equity Procurement Index

B Std. Error Exp (B) B Std. Error Exp (B)

(Intercept) − 1.480 1.080 0.228 2.075 1.084 7.964

Organizational capacity
Hierarchy -.005 0.045 0.995 0.082* 0.047 1.085
Annual Procurement Volume (Log) 0.078 0.066 1.081 − 0.033 0.066 0.967
Purchasing Staff 0.006 0.005 1.006 0.005 0.006 1.005
Certification = 0 − 0.096 0.092 0.908 − 0.070 0.097 0.932
Certification = 1 0a 1 0a 1
Executive leadership support 0.208*** 0.042 1.231 0.125** 0.043 1.133
Political values
% Vote Clinton 0.021*** 0.005 1.021 0.015** 0.005 1.015
Social Capital Index
Civic Groups per 1,000 0.230* 0.133 1.258 0.028 0.136 1.029
Voter turnout − 0.767 0.734 0.464 − 0.319 0.786 0.727
Census response rate 0.179 0.743 1.196 0.255 0.856 1.291
Number of domestic non-profit organizations 5.649E-06 1.3399E-05 1.000 1.347E-06 1.4443E-05 1.000

Control Variables
Demographics
Population Density − 5.349E-05** 2.6547E-05 1.000 − 1.726E-07 1.0079E-05 1.000
Median Age 0.012 0.013 1.012 − 0.038** 0.014 0.963
% African American Population − 0.015*** 0.005 0.986 − 0.004 0.005 0.996
% Hispanic Population − 0.004 0.005 0.996 − 0.007 0.005 0.993
Education − 0.011 0.008 0.989 − 0.026** 0.008 0.974
Economic indicators
Median Household Income 4.778E-06 4.3983E-06 1.000 2.628E-06 4.6977E-06 1.000
% Manufacturing 0.003 0.011 1.003 − 0.017 0.012 0.983
(Scale) 1b 1b

Significance level: *** p < 0.01 ** p < 0.05 *p < 0.1.

a
Set to zero because this parameter is redundant.
b
Fixed at the displayed value.

8
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556

Table 7
Hypotheses analysis.
Hypotheses Results Model 1 Results Model 2
Dependent Variable: Dependent Variable:
Green Procurement Social Equity Procurement
Index Index

H1Greater organizational capacity increases local government engagement in sustainable public procurement. Reject H0 Reject H0
H1aHierarchy Levels CPO-CEO Fail to reject the H0 Reject the H0
H1bAnnual Procurement Volume Fail to reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H1cPurchasing Staff Fail to reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H1dCertification Fail to reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H1eSupport from executive leadership increases an organization’s engagement in sustainable public procurement. Reject H0 Reject H0
H2Social capital positively impacts local government engagement in sustainable public procurement. Reject H0 Fail to reject the H0
H2aCivic Groups per 1,000 Reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H2bVoter Turnout Fail to reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H2cCensus Response Rate Fail to reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H2dNumber of Domestic Non-profit Organizations Fail to reject the H0 Fail to reject the H0
H3Cities with more politically progressive residents are more likely to engage in sustainable public procurement Reject H0 Reject H0
practices

levels of hierarchy between the head of procurement and the chief ex­
ecutive or chief administrative officer of that jurisdiction generates an
increase in social equity procurement practices.A possible explanation
for this finding may be that organizational structure is particularly
important due to the nature of social equity SPP. As results show,
leadership is highly important for engagement in SPP. Once leadership
supports these types of initiatives and as they become institutionalized,
hierarchy may become an important tool for implementation. A hier­
archical organizational structure may have a positive effect on perfor­
mance for those routine tasks that require coordination (Keum and
Kelly, 2017).
Annual procurement volume and the number of purchasing staff do
not influence engagement in either spheres of SPP. Similarly, profes­
sional certification required for supervisors (hypothesis H1d) does not
seem to significantly influence either model, even though previous
research finds that it is a significant predictor of engagement in overall
SPP, when all spheres are accounted for cumulatevily (Alkadry et al.,
2019).
Support from executive leadership in the local government is
accompanied by an increase in both green and social equity public
procurement practices. Executive leadership works hand-in-hand with
the resources available to the organization (Wang et al., 2014). The
results regarding GPP confirm previous studies on the importance of
leadership for engagement in SPP (e.g., Brammer and Walker, 2011;
Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020). If these tools are incorporated into
organizational strategic plans, procurement officials are more likely to
implement such initiatives (Brammer and Walker, 2011; Sönnichsen and
Clement, 2020). Wang et al. (2014) noted that leadership support for
sustainability is multidimensional, requiring administrative action and
awareness, and managerial execution. While the present study did not
examine these dimensions, it does capture the extent to which the ex­
ecutive leader prioritizes SPP. Prioritization of SPP practices guides and
mobilizes the organization and it’s personnel to achieve goals of sus­
tainable public procurement.
The results show that the number of civic groups - an element of
social capital, is associated with an increase in the likelihood of engaging
in GPP, yet it doesn’t impact social equity in procurement practices..
These findings partially support previous studies on social capital
emphasizing the potential for community groups to achieve solutions for
their own benefit and survival of their community (Homsy and Warner,
2015). In addition, social capital can shape government and quality of
services through concerted effort and shared values (Doh, 2014).
Overall, social capital drives the local agency to be responsive to the
needs of the community, particularly addressing issues of green public
procurement.
Politics influences both facets of SPP. The more politically liberal a
community is, the more likely it is to engage in SPP practices. Political
ideology and residents’ preferences generally steer policy making
(ArnoldDouglas, 1990; Saha, 2009; Alkadry et al., 2019). Previous
studies on sustainability have established correlation between political
ideology and sustainability (Wang et al., 2012; Alkadry et al., 2019).
Supporting these findings, the present study reports high statistical
significance between citizens’ democratic values and local government
engagement in SPP practices. There is a need for a bi-partisan support of
SPP to achieve cleaner production and ethical spending (adapting
Alkadry et al., 2019).
We controlled for demographics and the economic environment in
the community that may influence local government engagement in
SPP. The results support the argument that organizations respond to
community characteristics, and different environments call for different
types of policies. On the one side, local governments serving areas with a
higher population density and a higher percentage of African American
population are less likely to engage in green public procurement. On the
other side, the higher the level of education and the older the population
in the community the less likely the organization is to engage in social
equity procurement.
While the results identify different factors that impact SPP engage­
ment independently, there are clear overlaps that speak to the impor­
tance of leadership and the political system for SPP engagement. Public
administrators should focus on responsiveness to stakeholders and
consider the political nature of SPP. A major difference between the
models is the importance of social capital for the adoption of green
public procurement practices. In the case green public procurement,
network management should be key for local government leadership
engaging in SPP.
6. Limitations and future research
Our work is not without limitations. First, as the focus is on local
governments in the United States, future research could include other
jurisdictions (e.g., states) and provide a comparative perspective with
cases outside the United States context. Second, the authors acknowl­
edge that survey data for organizational characteristics may be prone to
social desirability bias and note it as a limitation of the study. However,
it is noteworthy that Remler and Van Ryzin (2015) argued that surveys
can be used to understand characteristics of organizations by inter­
viewing or surveying individuals in the organizations that are knowl­
edgable about the topic (Remler and Van Ryzin, 2015). Third, the data
for the organizational characteristics (i.e., independent variables) and
sustainable public procurement activities (i.e., dependent variables)
were obtained from the same survey instrument, which subjects this
research to common source bias. However, data for organizational
characteristics were compared against prior NIGP surveys capturing the
same information to address common source bias. Fourth, this study

9
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al.
analyses SPP implementation, not outcomes. Future studies could
analyze the impact of these practices by tracking governments’ sus­
tainability performance. Lastly, as the results around the relationship
between organizational structure and the inclusion of social equity in
procurement follows a contrary path to what was originally hypothe­
sized based on the literature, future studies could further explore the
reasoning behind the resuls.
7. Conclusion
Government procurement practices may influence production and
consumption patterns through sustainable public procurement prac­
tices. This tool has largely been missing in the cleaner production
literature, which is noteworthy because it is an important approach that
practitioners can utilize to protect the environment and advance social
equity in our communities.
In this paper, we assessed the factors that impact local government
engagement in SPP. While the topic is not new, there is much to learn
about government behavior regarding SPP (Grandia, 2016; Grandia and
Kruyen, 2020). Previous studies have noted the importance of awareness
and knowledge for SPP adoption and implementation (Brammer and
Walker, 2011; Grandia, 2016; Sönnichsen and Clement, 2020; Grandia
and Kruyen, 2020; Etse et al., 2021). Lubell and Allen (2007) noted the
that community engagement likely contributes to shaping policy
implementation and sustainability strategies (Lubell and Allen, 2007)
and Meehan and David (2014) find a correlation between structural
social capital and engagement in SPP. We argue that community social
capital provides a novel perspective on sustainable public procurement
practice. However, we note that the sustainable procurement literature
has not yet assessed the nexus between SPP and community social
capital.
To fill the identified gap in the literature, the present study demon­
strates that SPP is not driven by a single factor. Instead, several factors
impact local government engagement in SPP. Local government
engagement in SPP practices is a function of executive support, com­
munity social capital, and political ideology. Executive support and
political ideology variables are significant in both models of sustainable
public procurement, green and social equity. The results do demonstrate
the importance of each for engagement in all spheres of sustainability.
However, social capital is particularly important for engagement in
green public procurement. This notes the importance of collaboration,
coordination, and network management in addressing environmental
needs of the community.
These results yield implications both for theory advancement and
local government sustainability efforts. Several theoretical implications
can be drawn. First, our results provide greater understanding of the
predictors of local government engagement in SPP. Prior research has
noted the randomness of sustainability practices (Wang et al., 2014;
Prier et al., 2016). However, the present study provides insight into
factors that impact sustainability efforts of local governments by
creating a framework that accounts for several components of the
environment in which government policy operates. Second, this paper
identifies variables that play separate, important roles for green pro­
curement and social equity procurement. Examining the models in this
fashion helps provide a comprehensive view of sustainability and
identify the variations between the different components of sustain­
ability: green and socio-economic. This paves the foundation for further
research, which can explain the various facets that are specifically
involved in green procurement and social equity procurement. For
example, the following question may be considered in future studies on
organizational behavior: why does organizational structure have
different impacts on these two aspects of sustainable procurement? How
exactly does social capital impact enagement in green procurement
procurement? Third, the indices utilized for green and social equity
procurement establish a novel way to measure SPP. Definitions for
sustainability incorporate green, social, and economic factors. Yet, few
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556
measures have been established for sustainable public procurement.
Procurement is an essential function of government—utilized to
accomplish organizational goals. More research in this area is needed to
better understand sustainable public procurement and its implications
for government effectiveness.
In terms of implications for practice, this study can serve as a guide
for public managers seeking to implement sustainable public procure­
ment initiatives. Overall, the results demonstrate that the different
components of SPP require different attention. Community social capital
is important for engagement in green public procurement, but is not
significant in the case of social equity procurement. Collaboration with
community networks and organizational commitment are essential
strategies for SPP implementation in local governments. Therefore, to
facilitate engagement in green public procurement, it may be instru­
mental for local government entities to collaborate and network with
stakeholders outside the organization. However, executive support is
exceedingly important for overall engagement in SPP as demonstrated
by green and social equity models. From an organizational structure
viewpoint, this research most notably demonstrates that support from
executive leadership has a high correlation with sustainability initia­
tives. Taken together, decisionmakers should be responsive to—and
work together with—community networks while offering the necessary
support for an organization to pursue SPP. While executive support can
come in many forms (e.g., incorporating SPP in the strategic plan,
emphasizing training, lunch and learns), this study demonstrates that it
is an important factor that drives SPP.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Evelyn Rodriguez-Plesa: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Project administration, Software, Validation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Ana-Maria Dimand:
Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administra­
tion, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Mohamad G. Alkadry: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Vali­
dation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130556.
References
Aldrich, Daniel P., Michelle, A Meyer, 2015. Social capital and community resilience.
Am. Behav. Sci. 59 (2), 254–269.
Alkadry, Mohamad, Trammell, Evelyn, M Dimand, Ana, 2019. The power of public
procurement: social equity and sustainability and externalities and as deliberate
policy tools. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 12 (3), 336–362.
Andrews, Rhys, Gene, A., 2014. Brewer. “Social capital and public service performance:
does managerial strategy matter? Publ. Perform. Manag. Rev. 38 (no 2), 187–213.
Andrews, Rys, George, A., 2007. Boyne, Jennifer Law, and Richard M. Walker.
“Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance. J. Publ.
Adm. Res. Theor. 19, 57–80.
Arnold, R., Douglas, 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. Yale University Press.
UCLA Institute for Digital Research & Education. n.d.). “Regression with Stata Chapter 2
– Regression diagnostics.” Retrieved from. https://stats.idre.ucla.
edu/stata/webbooks/reg/chapter2/stata-webbooksregressionwith-statach
apter-2-regression-diagnostics/on 09/22/2021.
Bourdieu, Pierre, 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, Westport, CT,
pp. 241–258.
E. Rodriguez-Plesa et al.
Brammer, Stephen, Walker, Helen, 2011. Sustainable procurement in the public sector:
an international comparative study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31 (4), 452–476.
Brehm, John, Rahn, Wendy, 1997. Individual-level evidence for the causes and
consequences of social capital. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41 (3), 999–1023.
Brewer, Gene, 2003. Building social capital: civic attitudes and behavior of public
servants. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor. 13 (1), 5–26.
Brown, Trevor L., Potoski, Matthew, Van Slyke, David M., 2006. Managing public service
contracts: aligning values, institutions, and markets. Publ. Adm. Rev. 66 (3),
323–331.
Cheng, Wenjuan, Appolloni, Andrea, D’Amato, Alessio, Zhu, Qinghua, 2018. Green
Public Procurement, missing concepts and future trends–A critical review. J. Clean.
Prod. 176, 770–784.
Coleman, James S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol.
94, S95–S120.
Delmonico, Diego, Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour, Susana Carla Farias Pereira, Ana
Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Douglas William Scott Renwick, and Antônio
Márcio Tavares Thomé, 2018. Unveiling barriers to sustainable public procurement
in emerging economies: evidence from a leading sustainable supply chain initiative
in Latin America. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 134, 70–79.
Doh, Soogwan, 2014. Social capital, economic development, and the quality of
government: how interaction between social capital and economic development
affects the quality of government. Publ. Adm. 92 (no. 1), 104–124.
Engbers, Trent A., Rubin, Barry M., 2018. Theory to practice: policy recommendations
for fostering economic development through social capital. Publ. Adm. Rev. 78 (4),
567–578.
Erridge, Andrew, Greer, Jonathan, 2002. Partnerships and public procurement: building
social capital through supply relations. Publ. Adm. 80 (3), 503–522.
Etse, Daniel, McMurray, Adela, Muenjohn, Nuttawuth, 2021. Comparing sustainable
public procurement in the education and health sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 279 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123959.
Fiorino, Daniel J., 2010. Sustainability as a conceptual focus for public administration.
Publ. Adm. Rev. 70, s78–s88.
Frederickson, H. George, Smith, Kevin B., Larimer, Christopher W., Licari, Michael J.,
2016. The Public Administration Theory Primer. Westview Press.
Ganapati, N., 2012. Emel. "In good company: why social capital matters for women
during disaster recovery. Publ. Adm. Rev. 72 (3), 419–427.
Grandia, Jolien, 2016. Finding the missing link: examining the mediating role of
sustainable public procurement behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 183–190.
Grandia, J. Jolien, Kruyen, PM Peter, 2020. Assessing the implementation of sustainable
public procurement using quantitative text-analysis tools: a large-scale analysis of
Belgian public procurement notices. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 100627.
Homsy, George C., Warner, Mildred E., 2015. Cities and sustainability: polycentric action
and multilevel governance. Urban Aff. Rev. 51 (1), 46–73.
Hsueh, Lily, Bretschneider, Stuart, Stritch, Justin M., Darnall, Nicole, 2019.
Implementation of sustainable public procurement in local governments: a
measurement approach. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 20.2208/IJPSM-09-2019-0233.
Kapucu, Naim, 2006a. Interagency communication networks during emergencies:
boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. Am. Rev. Publ. Adm. 36 (2),
207–225.
Kapucu, 2006b. Public–nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts
of emergencies. Publ. Adm. 84 (1), 205, 20.
Keum, Dongil D., Kelly, E., 2017. The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and
selection in the innovation process. See Organ. Sci. 28 (4), 653–669.
Knack, Stephen, 1992. Civic norms, social sanctions, and voter turnout. Ration. Soc. 4
(2), 133–156.
Knack, 2002. Stephen “social capital and the quality of government: evidence from the
states”. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46 (4), 772–785.
Krause, Rachel M., 2011. Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the
adoption of climate protection initiatives by US cities. J. Urban Aff. 33 (1), 45–60.
Lang, Robert E., Hornburg, Steven P., 1998. What is social capital and why is it important
to public policy? Housing Policy Debate 9 (1), 1–16.
Laurian, Lucie, Crawford, Jan, 2016. Sustainability in the USA and New Zealand:
explaining and addressing the implementation gap in local government. J. Environ.
Plann. Manag. 59 (12), 2124–2144.
Leuenberger, Deniz Zeynep, Wakin, Michele, 2007. Sustainable development in public
administration planning: an exploration of social justice, equity, and citizen
inclusion. Adm. Theor. Prax. 29 (3), 394–411.
Lubell, Mark, Allen, Fulton, 2007. Local policy networks and agricultural watershed
management. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor. 18 (4), 673–696.
Meehan, Joanne, David, J., 2014. Bryde. "Procuring sustainably in social housing: the
role of social capital. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 20 (2), 74–81.
Musso, Juliet A., Weare, Christopher, Oztas, Nail, Loges, William E., 2006. Neighborhood
governance reform and networks of community power in Los Angeles. Am. Rev.
Publ. Adm. 36 (no. 1), 79–97.
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 338 (2022) 130556
Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). “Historical tables: total government
expenditures as percentages of GDP: 1948-2017”. Retrieved from https://www.wh
itehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/on November 1, 2018.
Opp, Susan M., Saunders, Kyle L., 2012. Pillar talk: local sustainability initiatives and
policies in the United States—Finding evidence of the “three E’s”: economic
development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Aff. Rev. 46 (5),
678–717.
O’Toole, Laurence J., Meier, Kenneth J., 2014. Public management, context, and
performance: in quest of a more general theory. J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor. 25,
237–256.
Portney, Kent E., 2003. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the
Environment, and Quality Of Life In American Cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Portney, Kent E., Berry, Jeffrey M., 2010. Participation and the pursuit of sustainability
in US cities. Urban Aff. Rev. 46 (1), 119–139.
Preuss, Lutz, 2007. Buying into our future: sustainability initiatives in local government
procurement. Bus. Strat. Environ. 16 (5), 354–365.
Prier, Eric, McCue, Clifford P., 2009. The implications of a muddled definition of public
procurement. J. Public Procure. 3/4, 326–370.
Prier, Eric, Schwerin, Edward, McCue, Clifford P., 2016. Implementation of sustainable
public procurement practices and policies: a sorting framework. J. Public Procure.
16 (3), 312–346.
Putnam, Robert D., 1995. Bowling Alone: America’s declining social capital. J. Democr. 6
(1), 65–78.
Putnam, 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon
& Schuster, New York.
Raj, Alok, Agrahari, Amit, Srivastava, Samir, 2020. Do pressures foster sustainable public
procurement? An empirical investigation comparing developed and developing
countries. J. Clean. Prod. 266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122055.
Rakitovac, K. Afrić, Vukmano, I., 2011. Simokov. "Promoting sustainable development
through public procurement. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific
Conference Entrepreneurship and Macroeconomic Management: Reflections on the
World in Turmoil, Pula, Croatia, pp. 24–26.
Remler, Dahlia K., Van Ryzin, Gregg G., 2015. Research Methods in Practice: Strategies
for Description and Causation. Sage Publications.
Rice, Tom W., 2001. Social capital and government performance in Iowa communities.
J. Urban Aff. 23 (3-4), 375–389.
Rice, Tom M., Sumberg, Alexander F., 1997. Civic culture and government performance
in the American states. Publius 27 (1), 99–114.
Roman, Alexandru, 2017. Institutionalizing sustainability: a structural equation model of
procurement in US public agencies. J. Clean. Prod. 145, 1048–1059.
Rupasingha, Anil, Goetz, Stephan J., Freshwater, David, 2006. The production of social
capital in US counties, 1 J. Soc. Econ. 35, 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socec.2005.11.001. with updates).
Saha, Devashree, 2009. Factors influencing local government sustainability efforts. State
Local Govern. Rev. 41 (1), 39–48.
Saha, Devashree, Paterson, Robert G., 2008. Local government efforts to promote the
“Three Es” of sustainable development: survey in medium to large cities in the
United States. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 28 (1), 21–37.
Simon, Christopher A., Wang, Changhua, 2002. The impact of Americorps service on
volunteer participants: results from a 2-year study in four western states. Adm. Soc.
34 (5), 522–540.
Sönnichsen, Sönnich Dahl, Clement, Jesper, 2020. Review of green and sustainable
public procurement: towards circular public procurement. J. Clean. Prod. 245
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118901.
Swann, William L., 2017. Examining the impact of local collaborative tools on urban
sustainability efforts: does the managerial environment matter? Am. Rev. Publ. Adm.
47 (4), 455–468.
Sweet, S.A., Grace-Martin, K.A., 2012. Modeling Relationships of Multiple Variables with
Linear Regression. Data Analysis with SPSS: A First Course in Applied Statistics”.
Chapter 7, pp. 161–188.
Tantardini, Michele, Kroll, Alexander, 2015. The role of organizational social capital in
performance management. Publ. Perform. Manag. Rev. 39 (1), 83–99.
Terman, Jessica, Smith, Christy, 2018. Putting your money where your mouth is: green
procurement as a form of sustainability. J. Public Procure. 18 (3), 202–216.
Universal Public Procurement Certification Council, 2019. Retrieved from. https://www.
uppcc.org/About/UPPCC on. (Accessed 21 January 2019).
Wang, XiaoHu, Hawkins, Christopher V., Lebredo, Nick, Berman, Evan M., 2012.
Capacity to sustain sustainability: a study of US cities. Publ. Adm. Rev. 72 (6),
841–853.
Wang, Xiaohu, Van Wart, Montgomery, Lebredo, Nick, 2014. Sustainability leadership in
a local government context: the administrator’s role in the process. Publ. Perform.
Manag. Rev. 37 (3), 339–364.
Woolcock, Michael, 1998. Social capital and economic development: toward a
theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theor. Soc. 27 (2), 151–208.