We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Set cookie preferences

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Publication - Research and analysis

Sustainable procurement duty - impact and value analysis: main report

Published
17 December 2020
From
Director-General Corporate
Directorate
Scottish Procurement and Property Directorate
Topic
Public sector
ISBN
9781800043770

Analysis of the impact and value of the sustainable procurement duty in procurement.

View supporting documents Supporting documents

Appendix 3: Analysis of level of detail provided in 2017-18 annual procurement reports

Our analysis of the information provided by public bodies in their 2017-18 annual procurement reports included analysis of whether public bodies’ annual reports contained reference to the different aspects of the Duty, as well as an assessment of the level of detail that public bodies provided in relation to each element of the Duty. We categorised the level of detail in reports as:

  • very detailed, where there was a detailed, clear and comprehensive description of the body’s approach to that aspect of the Duty, supported by detailed examples of activity and, in some cases, impact
  • sufficiently detailed, where there was a clear description of the body’s approach with some examples, and
  • minimally detailed, where there was a very brief or no description of the body’s approach with no or limited examples.

This appendix contains details of the extent to which the elements of the Duty were referenced in 2017-18 annual procurement reports, and the level of detail provided in relation to each

Community benefit requirements

All public bodies that submitted an annual procurement report in 2018 and/or 2019 included some reference to community benefit requirements, whether or not they had imposed any requirements in the reporting period.

However, the level of detail provided by public bodies in these reports varies significantly. Figure A3.1 shows that most public bodies provided a sufficient level of detail in their 2018 annual procurement reports (67, 58%), while 23 (20%) provided a very detailed account of their approach to community benefits, and 25 (22%) gave only minimal details. Those classified as providing minimal detail often only provided a brief statement of their policy about community benefit requirements with little or no detail about how they implement the policy, or of the community benefits achieved.

Figure A3.1: Level of detail provided about community benefit requirements (n=115)
Figure 3.1 shows that the total value of contracts sub-contracted to SMEs as a result of community benefit requirements was £73,998,000 in the central government sector (based on data submitted by 16 public bodies), £28,481,000 in the local government sector (based on data from ten bodies, £1,914,000 among universities and colleges (15 bodies), £307,000 among registered social landlords (ten bodies) and £11,000 among public bodies in the health sector (11 bodies).

These ratings were broadly similar across all sectors, but local government bodies (8, 27%) and universities and colleges (8, 31%) were more likely than public bodies in other sectors to provide very detailed accounts, and reports with minimal detail are more common among registered social landlords (5, 45%).

Improving environmental wellbeing

Seventy-three public bodies (63%) referenced an aspect of environmental wellbeing in their 2017-18 procurement reports. Of the public bodies that did so, the largest proportion were universities and colleges (23, 32%), followed by central government and other significant bodies (19, 26%) (Figure A3.2).

Figure A3.2: Organisations that referenced environmental wellbeing
Figure A3.2 shows that 19 public bodies in the central government sector included information about environmental wellbeing and nine did not. In the health sector, ten public bodies provided this information and ten did not, 15 did and 15 did not in the local government sector, six did and five did not among registered social landlords, and 23 universities and colleges did and three did not.

Figure A3.3 shows that over half of the public bodies that included information on environmental wellbeing in their reports provided a minimal level of detail (38, 52%), followed by 27 bodies (37%) providing a sufficient account of their approach to environmental wellbeing, and only eight bodies (11%) providing very detailed responses. The reports that contained minimal detail when referencing environmental wellbeing were most commonly submitted by local government (14, 37%) and central government bodies (11, 29%). The majority of very detailed accounts of environmental wellbeing were submitted by universities and colleges (4, 50%).

Figure A3.3: Level of detail provided about environmental wellbeing (n=73)

Fair work

Seventy-seven public bodies (67% of the 115 that published an annual procurement report in 2017-18) referenced an aspect of fair work practices in their report. Of the public bodies that did so, the largest proportion were central government and other significant bodies (23, 30%) and university and colleges (23, 30%); followed by local governments (20, 26%) (Figure A3.4).

Figure A3.4: Organisations that referenced this aspect of the Duty
Figure A3.4 shows that 23 public bodies in the central government sector included information about fair work practices and five did not. In the health sector, six public bodies provided this information and 14 did not, 20 did and ten did not in the local government sector, five did and six did not among registered social landlords, and 23 universities and colleges did and three did not.

The level of detail provided by public bodies in relation to fair work practices was mixed. Only four public bodies (5%) included a very detailed account of how fair work practices they have incorporated in their procurement process. As Figure A3.5 shows, however, more than half of public bodies 39 (51%) provided minimal detail, with the remainder 34 (44%) of public bodies providing sufficient detail.

Figure A3.5: Level of detail provided about fair work (n=77)

The real Living Wage

Seventy-six public bodies (66% of the 115 that published an annual procurement report in 2018) included some reference to the payment of the real Living Wage in their report. Of the public bodies that did reference the real Living Wage, the largest proportion were central government and other significant bodies (22, 29%) and university and colleges (22, 29%), closely followed by local authorities (18, 24%) (Figure A3.6).

Figure A3.6: Organisations that referenced the real Living Wage
Figure A3.6 shows that 22 public bodies in the central government sector included information about the real Living Wage and six did not. In the health sector, eight public bodies provided this information and 12 did not, 18 did and 12 did not in the local government sector, six did and five did not among registered social landlords, and 22 universities and colleges did and four did not.

Figure A3.7 shows that 36 public bodies (47%) provided only minimal detail about the real Living Wage, 34 (45%) gave sufficient detail and only six (8%) included very detailed descriptions.

Figure A3.7: Level of detail provided about the real Living Wage (n=76)

Fairly and ethically traded goods

Thirty-nine (34%) public bodies that submitted an annual report in 2018 included some reference to encouraging the use of ethical supply chains during the reporting year. Of the public bodies that did reference this, the largest proportion were universities and colleges (18, 46%) (Figure A3.8).

Figure A3.8: Organisations that reference ethical supply chains
Figure A3.8 shows that six public bodies in the central government sector included information about ethical supply chains and 22 did not. In the health sector, four public bodies provided this information and 16 did not, ten did and 20 did not in the local government sector, four did and seven did not among registered social landlords, and 18 universities and colleges did and eight did not.

Figure A3.9 indicates that 21 public bodies (50%) gave details about ethical supply chains that could be described as minimal, 16 (38%) gave sufficient detail and only five (12%) included very detailed descriptions.

Figure A3.9: Level of detail provided about ethical supply chains (n=42)

Involving SMEs

Ninety-three (81%) public bodies that submitted an annual procurement report in 2018 included some reference to facilitating the involvement of SMEs during the reporting year. Of the public bodies that did reference this aspect of the Duty, the largest proportion were local authorities (26, 28%), closely followed by central government and other significant bodies (25, 27%), and universities and colleges (24, 26%) (Figure A3.10).

Figure A3.10: Organisations that referenced facilitating the involvement of SMEs
Figure A3.10 shows that 25 public bodies in the central government sector included information about facilitating the involvement of SMEs and three did not. In the health sector, nine public bodies provided this information and 11 did not, 26 did and four did not in the local government sector, nine did and two did not among registered social landlords, and 24 universities and colleges did and two did not.

The extent of detail provided by public bodies on the ways in which they facilitated the access of SMEs was mixed. Figure A3.11 shows that 47 (51%) public bodies that referenced facilitation of SMEs in their 2018 annual procurement report only provided a minimal level of detail; 36 public bodies (39%) provided a reasonable account of how they facilitated the involvement of SMEs, while only 10 public bodies (11%) provided very detailed responses.

Figure A3.11: Level of detail provided by the organisation about facilitating the involvement of SMEs (n=93)

Involving third sector bodies

Fifty-seven public bodies (50%) that submitted an annual procurement report in 2018 included some reference to facilitating the involvement of third sector bodies. Of the public bodies that did reference this aspect of the Duty, the largest proportion were local government bodies (20, 35%), followed by central government and other significant bodies (17, 30%) (Figure A3.12).

Figure A3.12: Organisations that referenced facilitating the involvement of third sector bodies
Figure A3.12 shows that 17 public bodies in the central government sector included information about facilitating the involvement of third sector bodies and 11 did not. In the health sector, three public bodies provided this information and 17 did not, 20 did and ten did not in the local government sector, four did and seven did not among registered social landlords, and 13 universities and colleges did and 13 did not.

Figure A3.13 shows that 37 of the public bodies (65%) which included information about how they aimed to involve third sector bodies in their procurement activities provided a minimum level of detail; 19 bodies (33%) provided a sufficient account of how they facilitated the involvement of third sector bodies and only one public body (2%) provided a very detailed account (this was a local authority).

Figure A3.13: Level of detail provided by the organisation about the involvement of third sector bodies (n=57)

Involving supported businesses

One hundred and ten (96%) public bodies that submitted an annual procurement report in 2018 included some reference to facilitating the involvement of supported businesses with only four organisations not providing this information. This is a strong indication of widespread compliance with the Duty – and it is important to note that even those that did not report that they are doing so may be involving supported businesses in practice (Figure A3.14).

Figure A3.14: Organisations that referenced facilitating the involvement of supported businesses
Figure A3.14 shows that 27 public bodies in the central government sector included information about facilitating the involvement of supported businesses and one did not. In the health sector, 20 public bodies provided this information and none did not, 29 did and one did not in the local government sector, eight did and three did not among registered social landlords, and 26 universities and colleges did and none did not.

While Figure A3.15 shows that most public bodies provided a sufficient level of detail in their 2018 annual procurement reports (62, 56%), only 12 (11%) provided a very detailed account of their approach to facilitating the involvement of supported businesses, and 36 (33%) provided only minimal detail suggesting that there remains room for improvement in relation to reporting.

Figure A3.15: Level of detail provided about involving supported businesses (n=110)

Promoting innovation

Less than half of all 2017-18 annual procurement reports submitted by public bodies contained a reference to promoting innovation. In total, 42% (48) of public bodies included this information in their annual procurement report. The chart below provides a breakdown by sector (Figure A3.16).

Figure A3.16: Number of 2017-18 annual procurements with a reference to promoting innovation (n=115)
Figure A3.16 shows that 11 public bodies in the central government sector included information about promoting innovation and 17 did not. In the health sector, five public bodies provided this information and 15 did not, 11 did and 19 did not in the local government sector, three did and eight did not among registered social landlords, and 18 universities and colleges did and eight did not.

The level of detail provided in relation to promoting innovation provided by public bodies varied significantly. Over half (28, 58%) of the reports which referenced innovation contained sufficient detail about this aspect of the Duty. However, only two public bodies (4%) included a very detailed section on innovation (Figure A3.17).

Figure A3.17: Level of detail provided about promoting innovation (n=48)
Figure A3.17 shows that 4% of public bodies that provided information about promoting innovation provided very detailed information, 58% provided sufficient detail and 38% provided minimal detail.

Contact

Email: socialresearch@gov.scot

Back to top