Credibility Principles User Guide: Public Procurement Building policy around credible standards and labels for sustainability in public procurement Public procurement encompasses a huge range of actors from those at the intergovernmental and supranational level, to national legislators, to local and institutional policy makers, to hands on purchasers. This guide is largely intended for those government bodies, departments or agencies responsible, in some form, for setting the policy frameworks in which (sustainable) public procurement takes place. This guide is not intended to inform governments how to set their broad policy frameworks (whether directly for procurement or other related policies) nor the public policy goals they should be pursuing. Instead, it is intended to aid them when they are using or considering using sustainability standards in some aspect of their activities. Although guidance may be needed in additional areas of public procurement, such as purchasers themselves, they may require more tailored support than the information provided here.

1. Introduction With the development of the sustainability agenda and the advancement of sustainable public procurement in the last ten years, many governments are modifying their public procurement frameworks to match desired public policy outcomes around sustainability. Sustainability standards, ecolabels and certification schemes can be extremely useful tools for public procurement activities - specifically where the sustainability of procured goods, services or works is considered in the procurement process. Such tools already play a role in various aspects of public procurement including in the development of policy content around sustainability, in understanding the sustainability challenges affecting a supply chain, in the development of technical specifications and in demonstrating compliance with those requirements. Sustainability standards are relied upon by many because they save time and resources, and incorporate expert, stakeholder-driven understanding of key sustainability issues, across many sectors and product categories (of which a public procurer may not necessarily be informed). Yet, with a seemingly ever-increasing proliferation of standards, ecolabels and certification schemes in the 1 marketplace , many of those involved in public procurement are demanding greater clarity around the differences between schemes, the content they cover, the claims they make, the impacts they have, and how they can be used legally and in a cost-effective manner. In order for standards to be a truly valuable resource to public procurement,

1

At the time of publishing, the Ecolabel Index counted 437 ecolabels in 197 countries, across 25 industrial sectors: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/

they need to be credible – both high quality and effective. In order to help users better identify the standards which most fulfil the requirements of credibility, the ISEAL Alliance launched its Credibility Principles in 2013. ISEAL’s Credibility Principles offer a globally-agreed vision of the core values upon which effective sustainability 2 standards are built. They offer a more sophisticated and consistent language to deal with sustainability standards, which are likely to play an increasingly important role in future sustainable procurement practice.

2. Scope and Application Where sustainability standards and similar tools are used or have the potential to be utilised in public procurement, the Credibility Principles can play a useful role in assessing their relative qualities and can act as a means to improve understanding on the differences between credible and less credible standards. In using or endorsing particular schemes in their procurement practices, governments can lend both intended and unintended legitimacy and support to those schemes. When this is done, it is paramount that those being endorsed are the most effective and the most credible, both for the reputation of the public sector and to ensure the greatest impact on the ground. The Credibility Principles are not a compliance mechanism and cannot give a definitive yes/no answer to the question “Is this system credible?” They can, however, help governments ask the right questions about the standards, labels and certification schemes they encounter. As with other ISEAL tools, the Credibility Principles build on existing normative guidance around sustainability standards systems, legality and international trade rules, including ISEAL’s Codes of Good Practice, guidance from the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as relevant regional and national legislation and regulation.

2

A sustainability standard refers to any voluntary system that focusses on sustainability performance and that incorporates a standard and a mechanism for assuring compliance with that standard.

2

3. How procurement framework and policy setters can use the Credibility Principles a) Using a standard’s content for making procurement policy One way in which governments may use sustainability standards for public procurement is through defining and setting policy. In this, a sustainability standard provides a ready-made and established set of principles and criteria against which performance of a product, service or supplier can be assessed. For example, if a government only wants to purchase timber from sustainably managed sources, it can use some or all of the principles and criteria contained within a forest management standard within its procurement policy. It may be that a government selects a standard based on it being recognised as the ‘best in class’ standard in a sector or where there is overall consensus or participation within a sector towards a particular scheme. It is important that governments do not adopt standards wholesale if they do not adequately address the most pressing issues, at the most pressing stages of a product’s life. Similarly, it is important that the standard(s) selected for use in a policy align with overall policy objectives, thereby ensuring that the standard included is the most relevant. Considering the process through which a standard was created will also help avoid standards created for self-interested purposes or which fail to include minority and expert voices.

Why the Credibility Principles are useful here… In adopting some or all the contents of a particular voluntary standard, a government is placing significant faith in the quality of that content and the processes through which that content has been defined. Under each Credibility Principle, information is provided explaining how and where it most applies within a standards system. When assessing standards to adopt into policy, the crucial parts of a system to consider are standards content – whether it covers the most critical sustainability challenges associated with the specific product or service - and standards setting – whether the standard was set in such a way that all interested parties had the opportunity to participate in its development.

b) Specifying, endorsing or referencing a standard alongside procurement policy Depending on the legal framework in place, a government may choose to specify a particular standard or ecolabel for procurers within its jurisdiction to use (although this will often be accompanied with the caveat ‘or equivalent’). The policy may have been developed with a particular standard in mind or there might be a close alignment between the public procurement regime and a particular ecolabelling programme. Certification can therefore act as a means of demonstrating compliance with a particular policy. This sort of activity can range from a full, ‘hard’ reference [“you should use ‘x’ or equivalent to measure compliance”] to softer endorsement, such as providing information around particular schemes alongside policy documents. In either case, those elaborating procurement policy will have to make decisions between which standards to include and which to omit.

3

Why the Credibility Principles are useful here… Endorsement or reference to voluntary standards by governments, in or with policy, can send powerful signals. It can mean procurers increase their use of particular schemes or that external market notice the added legitimacy being afforded these schemes, and thereby gravitate towards them. In order to avoid causing unwanted effects in the market, and to insure against criticism of such choices, policy-makers need to be able to justify these decisions. The Credibility Principles offer a means to inform such decisions and a common, agreed language through which to explain these decisions to stakeholders (including procurers, suppliers, standards systems, other government officials and the general public).

c) Undertaking benchmarking exercises Rather than endorse or support a particular standard or label, procurement policy makers may undertake benchmarking exercises to establish which of the available schemes would demonstrate compliance with a particular policy. In the case of the UK Timber Procurement Policy, this benchmarking was, and is, undertaken by the externally managed Centre Point for Expertise on Timber (CPET). Other public organisations in a given jurisdiction or territory may benchmark standards and labels against policies to which their purchasing must conform. A different example is the US EPA development of guidelines for assessing voluntary standards and ecolabels themselves, with the intention for an external, non-government organisation to do the benchmarking activities. However, benchmarking is not a simple exercise and, in order to be done effectively, it requires good understanding of sustainability standards systems. Historically, the focus of such exercises has been on the content of standards, with limited reference to the processes through which a standard is implemented, meaning systems with very different levels of performance and credibility have been seen as equivalent.

Why the Credibility Principles are useful here… With limited resources and tools available on the market to help support efforts to benchmark sustainability standards systems effectively, the Credibility Principles can be helpful. They are of particular use to inform the parameters and criteria for assessing the process components of a standard system – assurance, claims and labelling, traceability, governance, monitoring and evaluation, and the standard setting process. They can also help inform the assessment of the standards content itself. Whilst the Credibility Principles are general in nature and a standard cannot be assessed for ‘compliance’ with them, they also underpin the parameters of the Sustainability Standards Comparison Tool (SSCT). This is a tool being developed by ISEAL, GIZ and the International Trade Center (ITC), which will provide a practical, accurate and credible means for comparing standards through an online platform.

4

d) Providing guidance, support and training Government bodies or departments responsible for setting procurement frameworks often also offer guidance and training around sustainable procurement to purchasers from across the public sector and suppliers. This guidance and training also frequently covers aspects of sustainability standards systems. Such guidance and training may also be developed and delivered by externally contracted, independent or international organisations.

Why the Credibility Principles are useful here… When offering advice or delivering training around sustainability standards, the Credibility Principles offer a logical and cohesive framework through which to develop materials. They outline the issues that need to be taken into consideration when assessing the merits of particular systems and using them as a reference can ensure areas are not overlooked or missed. Similarly, they can be used as a tool themselves, to increase understanding amongst procurers or those interested in sustainable procurement across government.

e) Demonstrating impact and results Governments and public procurers are facing increased pressure to demonstrate the value for money in their purchasing and that public finances are being spent effectively. Having a transparent and accessible system for monitoring and evaluating the impacts of sustainability standards system can be used by purchasers employing particular schemes or labels to communicate their own institutional and policy impact. The Credibility Principles can help policy-makers and procurers assess the likelihood that a scheme they use or endorse will be in a position to provide such information.

5

4. Translating the Principles Below, we present each of the principles, together with an explanation of why they are important from a public procurement perspective. When taken collectively, these principles provide a check-list for public procurement policy makers to ensure that they have considered all the relevant parts of a standards system and are endorsing only high quality, credible standards. It is important to clarify certain definitions as a number of the principles have different names or different meanings in the context of public procurement. Although the principles deal specifically with sustainability standards, ecolabels and certification systems (and are not intended to be applied to all public procurement activities) the underlying spirit of them resounds with that of good governance and the tenets of good public procurement.

i) Sustainability: Is the sustainability objective of the standard clearly defined? Sustainability can mean different things to different organisations. This is the same for public procurement and the exact definition of sustainability for different public sector organisations is likely to be influenced by the particular function and position of the organisation e.g. a water utilities company may place greater emphasis on water management practices. Political agendas may also mean greater focus on ‘green’ or ‘responsible’ or ‘ethical’ or ‘fair’ or ‘sustainable’ procurement. As a principle, sustainability refers to the standard being explicit about what sustainability objective(s) the scheme owners, developers and stakeholders are trying to advance. This allows the public procurer to assess whether this objective is consistent with their own sustainability policy/targets. On their own, the Credibility Principles will not answer whether a particular standard is ‘sustainable enough’ – there may be important areas that a procurer must address which sit outside of the standard’s objectives or it may go beyond the areas a procurer is willing or able to specify sustainability.

ii) Improvement: Does the system measure progress and update the standard to ensure increased benefits to people and the environment? At the heart of a good sustainability standard is the ability to bring about change and improvement on the ground. This can be helped by an effective and clear monitoring and evaluation system which, in turn, offers a means for procurers to see and report on the impact they are having through their purchasing decisions. Furthermore, where a standard is used as the basis of policy or purchasing criteria, governments need to be sure that it is regularly updated and revised to keep up with the changing situation in the field, in the factory or in the market place (and not that of five or ten years ago). A credible system will therefore incorporate mechanisms to address new issues and changing political demands as and when they emerge. Considering improvement in the context of market capacity and the stated objectives of the scheme will help governments decide whether to use a high bar standard and reward only the best performing producers or a lower bar scheme that is accessible to a greater proportion of a sector.

iii) Relevance: Does the standard deal with the most pressing sustainability challenges associated with a product or service?

6

The principle of ‘Relevance’ in the Credibility Principles should not be confused with the concept in public procurement of ‘linked to the subject matter’. Relevance as per the Credibility Principles covers the way in which standards address the most pressing sustainability impacts of a product, service or work. It also means a standard reflects best scientific understanding. Depending on the legal framework in place, there may be areas relevant for inclusion under the broader scope of certification which are not relevant considerations to a particular contract or tender.

iv) Rigour: Is the system coherently structured to ensure it delivers its sustainability objectives? Rigour, although clearly a preferable feature of a sustainability standard system for public procurement, is difficult for public procurers or policy makers to consider in detail when assessing a standards system. This is partly because it refers to the integrity of the system itself and relates to the composition and relationship between different system components. These components include standard-setting, assurance (verification and certification), claims, labelling and traceability, governance and operations, as well as impact measurement. Whilst important, this is not easy to evaluate externally and is more useful for those involved in the design and management of a system.

v) Engagement: Was the standard developed by a balanced and representative group of stakeholders? Engagement in the development and management of a standards system is important to public procurement because it helps improve the quality of the standard (by incorporating expertise) and helps mitigate against concerns by including interested stakeholders in the process (which may also include policy makers, procurement officers and suppliers). Engagement in standard setting is often one of the first process elements introduced by governments when considering voluntary standards in their procurement. For example, the existing European directives on public procurement permit the use of ecolabels if they fulfil certain criteria, including that they are developed “using a procedure in which stakeholders, such as government bodies, consumers, manufacturers, distributors and environmental organisations can participate”.

vi) Impartiality: Are structures in place to avoid corruption and mitigate conflicts of interest? Impartiality is important to both standards systems and public procurement as a whole. Good procurement is not unduly biased or corrupt and neither is a good standard system. However, pure impartiality is something which must sometimes be weighed against accessibility to particular groups. Impartiality is often considered in terms of third party independence however, there is an important distinction between the ‘third party’ in a standards system and the ‘third party’ in public procurement. In the former, the third party is generally an organisation independent from both the certified entity and the standard scheme owner – often a professional auditing company. For public procurement, an independent third party refers to a third party to the contract i.e. neither the supplier nor the contracting authority. It generally does not refer to method of conformity assessment employed by a particular standards system or ecolabel.

vii) Transparency: Is information on the standard and organisations certified to the standards readily available?

7

As it is in other areas, transparency is a central concept for good and effective government. Transparency of process is underlined by most progressive public procurement regimes and so, whilst the application to sustainability standards may be different, the importance of the concept should resound within both fields and be mutually supporting. Transparency on the part of standards systems can help improve efficiencies and access to information, for example publically available databases of certified entities can make it easier to verify the claims a supplier makes.

viii)

Accessibility: Is the standard overly burdensome to certain producers and companies?

Accessibility has a different connotation in public procurement than it does for sustainability standards systems, although there are similarities and it is an overriding concern in both fields (and a frequent cause for complaint). In the case of public procurement, governments often put measures in place to ensure access to particular types of company (e.g. micro, small and medium enterprises) or to particular groups (e.g. women, disabled, minorities). Standards systems also sometimes employ different measures for different types of producers and companies e.g. smallholders to ensure accessibility. For many micro/small/medium enterprises, accessibility is dependent in part on price implications of certified products, which is not something covered by the Credibility Principles. Equal access and opportunity to compete for public contracts is a central theme and concern in public procurement and the provision within the Credibility Principles for accessibility to standards supports this concern.

ix) Truthfulness: Are claims and labelling practices clear and verifiable? By supporting or using certain voluntary standards public procurers can add legitimacy to those schemes. Similarly, public entities are scrutinised for the claims they make and held accountable as much as private companies. If claims rest on a standard or label, the user must be satisfied that they are truthful and not misleading. Using the Credibility Principles to assess truthfulness can help mitigate against endorsing schemes which might bring negative publicity, and to ensure positive impact. This is of particular importance when policy-makers are also involved in producing guidance around green claims or regulating against ‘greenwashing’. Truthfulness is also a consideration when appraising a supplier’s claim to be certified or to be supplying certified goods, and this is made easier if a standard system is transparent and able to offer access to lists of certified entities.

x) Efficiency: Is there collaboration with other relevant schemes? The efficient use of public resources is a prominent concern for those involved in public procurement. This means it is both effective in terms of delivering impact and it avoids unnecessary or arbitrary considerations – qualities shared by good practices in sustainability standards systems. Efficiency in sustainability standards can also mean cooperation and collaboration with other credible schemes and, while this is not necessarily a central concern for public procurement when assessing standards, it can make it easier to include certain specifications if criteria are similar across schemes. If policy makers look to a particular scheme to support the implementation of policy it is also useful to be assured that the standards scheme has organisational longevity and that there will be adequate supply of certified goods or services. Efficiency can help inform judgement on the governance and business model of a standard system and its capacity to scale up to meet demand.

8