Managing Sustainable Public Procurement: A Nationwide Survey in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A very important topic of Sustainable Public Procurement is investigated. This is a good study that extensively covered the insight of the research problem. However, after some minor modifications, this could be accepted.

1.  Abstract may require a more precise and brief form.

2. Screenshots of graphs require reproduction in the appropriate software.

3. It is suggested to share profiles of experts that you have interviewed. This could be in a graphical/tabular form.

4. It is unclear how authors have come up with a few driving forces and their scores on a 10 point scale?? Need more clarification and justification too. The same goes for barriers.

5. The paper focuses on Green Procurement and thus suggests procuring materials with certain labeling. It is recommended to share those labels in pictorial form both in the EU and China while comapring both sectors.

6.  Overall this paper could be more attractive with the aid of Figures/graphical representations of attractive graphs/figures.

Author Response

1. Abstract may require a more precise and brief form.

Has been improved

2. Screenshots of graphs require reproduction in the appropriate software.

All figures have been reproduced.

3. It is suggested to share profiles of experts that you have interviewed. This could be in a graphical/tabular form.

Please refer to Line 261-264, a brief profiles of interviewee has been included.

4. It is unclear how authors have come up with a few driving forces and their scores on a 10 point scale?? Need more clarification and justification too. The same goes for barriers.

Please refer to line 403 and 433, in which we have mention that all driving forces and barriers are from the literature study. Score on a 10 point scale is recommended by this research.

5. The paper focuses on Green Procurement and thus suggests procuring materials with certain labeling. It is recommended to share those labels in pictorial form both in the EU and China while comapring both sectors.

Thanks for the good comment. We have added the table 2, which shows a summary of common used labels in EU and China SPP. We do not present them in a pictorial form, since all label LOGOes occupy too much space and they are not looking nice in this research article (may be better fitting with normal report/publication).

6. Overall this paper could be more attractive with the aid of Figures/graphical representations of attractive graphs/figures

Thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Without a shadow of a doubt, Sustainable Public Procurement has gained huge relevance over the last years. Nowadays, more and more public authorities try to balance economic, social and environmental aspects when procuring goods and services. In this way, it is necessary to consider how different countries, as China, deal with it.

As an aspect for reflection: should it be necessary or useful in order to achieve a real SPP to update China´s current legal framework? As the article explains in the introduction, China´s SPP started in 2004 but Procurement Laws are previous while, for example, the EU Public Procurement Directives dates from 2014, and concepts related to them are constantly evolving.

Moreover, it would be recommendable to define who this article is addressed to, considering that public procurement is a set of relationships among different stakeholders.

Finally, I would highlight that the article perfectly details the research process and authors include at the end the limitation related to the total PPCs responded.

Author Response

Without a shadow of a doubt, Sustainable Public Procurement has gained huge relevance over the last years. Nowadays, more and more public authorities try to balance economic, social and environmental aspects when procuring goods and services. In this way, it is necessary to consider how different countries, as China, deal with it.

THANK YOU

As an aspect for reflection: should it be necessary or useful in order to achieve a real SPP to update China´s current legal framework? As the article explains in the introduction, China´s SPP started in 2004 but Procurement Laws are previous while, for example, the EU Public Procurement Directives dates from 2014, and concepts related to them are constantly evolving.

IN CHINA THE LEGALFRAMEWORK HAS ALSO EVOLVED OVER TIME

Moreover, it would be recommendable to define who this article is addressed to, considering that public procurement is a set of relationships among different stakeholders.

RESEARCHERS AND PRACTICIONNERS

Finally, I would highlight that the article perfectly details the research process and authors include at the end the limitation related to the total PPCs responded.

Thanks!

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is very interesting and touched an very important topic-- SPP/GPP in China. The authors have much experience in PP and SPP in China. In general, this is a very good paper.

In order to improve the quality of this paper, before it can be published some issues should be carefully drawn.

My concern are as follows:

1) As a GPP/SPP study focusing on China, some important and recent academic paper has missing. The authors should work more on literature, especially GPP/SPP on China. Some papers should be read and cite:

 

[1] Liu, J.*, Shi, B., Xue, J., Wang, Q. (2019). Improving the green public procurement performance of Chinese local governments: From the perspective of officials’ knowledge. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(3), 100501.

[2] Wang, Q., Zhang, R., Liu, J.*. (2020). Price/time/intellectual efficiency of procurement: Uncovering the related factors in Chinese public authorities. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 26(3), 100622.

2) The data in this paper gained from procurement center, this is an common source of data. However, China's PP has been much more de-centralized (more than 55% in 2020, data from MOF of PRC).  With so many decentralized PP, how can you ensure that only the data from the purchasing cent can represent the whole picture? If this problem cannot be solved, then I think it should be mention in the limitations and future studies section in this paper.

3) About the suggestion point 2 in this paper. I have some different view to discuss.  As we all know, in China, SOEs are by no means entities that can be easily changed. The GPA negotiations between China and the EU have been engaged in negotiations on this issue for several years, but no progress has been made. China has no room for compromise on the inclusion of SOEs in PP. Therefore, as a suggestion, I think the author should replace it with one that is more operable in practice, which can enhance the practical value of the whole article.

I hope the authors can carefully improve this good paper, I am happy to review it again after this revision.

Thanks and best regards for you!!

Author Response

1) As a GPP/SPP study focusing on China, some important and recent academic paper has missing. The authors should work more on literature, especially GPP/SPP on China. Some papers should be read and cite:

Thanks for the comment and for the suggested articles. 6 more articles are reviewed and added. All these 6 articles are related to GPP/SPP on China.

2) The data in this paper gained from procurement center, this is an common source of data. However, China's PP has been much more de-centralized (more than 55% in 2020, data from MOF of PRC). With so many decentralized PP, how can you ensure that only the data from the purchasing cent can represent the whole picture? If this problem cannot be solved, then I think it should be mention in the limitations and future studies section in this paper.

Thanks for the comment. We have added this limitations at the end of the manuscript. Also WE MENTION THAT OUR DATA CONCERN THE 55% DECENTRALIZED.

3) About the suggestion point 2 in this paper. I have some different view to discuss. As we all know, in China, SOEs are by no means entities that can be easily changed. The GPA negotiations between China and the EU have been engaged in negotiations on this issue for several years, but no progress has been made. China has no room for compromise on the inclusion of SOEs in PP. Therefore, as a suggestion, I think the author should replace it with one that is more operable in practice, which can enhance the practical value of the whole article.

This is a very good comment! We fully agree with you that including SOEs into SPP is difficult currently in China. However there are strong voice from academic sector of China that involving SOEs into Chinese SPP is recommended. Thus we have added in the revised manuscript: 1) there are many challenges including SOEs into SPP in China; 2) we still recommend that it is necessary that SOEs should be included.

I hope the authors can carefully improve this good paper, I am happy to review it again after this revision.

Thanks and best regards for you!

Reviewer 4 Report

“Managing Sustainable Public Procurement: A nationwide survey in China” articles contribute to the field but need substantial improvement.

1. Abstract must be concise and it must depict some useful results of the study too.

2. I have not found the literature review section. Authors must include the literature section starting with aspects of sustainability for the organizations. I have a few suggestions in this regards to cover the aspects of the sustainability. “Green Lean Six Sigma for improving manufacturing sustainability: Framework development and validation” “Green lean six sigma sustainability–oriented project selection and implementation framework for manufacturing industry” “Exploration and investigation of green lean six sigma adoption barriers for manufacturing sustainability” “An inclusive review of Green Lean Six Sigma for sustainable development: readiness measures and challenges “This will enhance the aspects of the sustainability.

3. Authors must represent their methodology with clear diagram that will enhance the visibility and understanding of the adopted method in the research.

4. Authors must put structure of the article at the end of the introduction section also highlights major research questions.

5. Authors presented results in the nice manner but more elaboration on the discussion part is needed.

6. There is a slew typo and grammatical error in the manuscript. Please fix the same.

7. Improve the referencing of the paper. There are some missing references.

8. Compare the results of your study with previous studies of the same nature.

 

9. Conclusion must represent after effect of the study.

 

Author Response

1. Abstract must be concise and it must depict some useful results of the study too.

Improved.

2. I have not found the literature review section. Authors must include the literature section starting with aspects of sustainability for the organizations. I have a few suggestions in this regards to cover the aspects of the sustainability. “Green Lean Six Sigma for improving manufacturing sustainability: Framework development and validation” “Green lean six sigma sustainability–oriented project selection and implementation framework for manufacturing industry” “Exploration and investigation of green lean six sigma adoption barriers for manufacturing sustainability” “An inclusive review of Green Lean Six Sigma for sustainable development: readiness measures and challenges“This will enhance the aspects of the sustainability.

The first section Introduction is focusing on literature review. A certain part OF THE PAPER IS THEORY, ALLTHOUGH THE NAME IS NOT THERE.

3. Authors must represent their methodology with clear diagram that will enhance the visibility and understanding of the adopted method in the research.

We have added figure 1, which presents the methodologies and procedures being applied in this research.

4. Authors must put structure of the article at the end of the introduction section also highlights major research questions.

Done

5. Authors presented results in the nice manner but more elaboration on the discussion part is needed.

Done

6. There is a slew typo and grammatical error in the manuscript. Please fix the same.

Checked and done

7. Improve the referencing of the paper. There are some missing references.

Checked and done.

8. Compare the results of your study with previous studies of the same nature.

Thanks for this good suggestion. Comparing this study with previous studies would be very useful and valuable. However we have investigated similar studies and, although few similar surveys are available, they are all on local level and they use very limited indicators. Thus comparisons are not provided in our paper. This must be done in the future studies.

9. Conclusion must represent after effect of the study.

Done

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has been significantly improved, and this version can be published.

Congratulations for the authors and best regards!

Reviewer 4 Report

 The article needs another round of  major revision especially in the introduction and methodology section

1.      I strongly suggest authors  to incorporate aspects of sustainability by enhancing the introduction section.  I have a few suggestions in this regard to cover the aspects of the sustainability. “Green Lean Six Sigma for improving manufacturing sustainability: Framework development and validation” “Green lean six sigma sustainability–oriented project selection and implementation framework for manufacturing industry” “Exploration and investigation of green lean six sigma adoption barriers for manufacturing sustainability” “An inclusive review of Green Lean Six Sigma for sustainable development: readiness measures and challenges.   “This will enhance the aspects of sustainability.

2.      Methodology section needs more elaboration and more depth.

3.      There are still many typos and grammatical errors.

4.     Conclusion section needs more improvement in terms of the after-effects of the study.

5.      Compare your results with previous studies of the same nature.

6.      Include a sub section for implications to the practitioners.