Understanding the models for integrating sustainability into the procurement process

1.  Introduction

In a context coloured by environmental degradation, scarcity of resources, rapidly rising consumption rates and persistent social inequality, discussions surrounding sustainable procurement practices are increasingly important. No longer can public and private organisations wilfully blind themselves to the consequences of choices they make regarding what to buy, how to buy it and who to buy it from.

Despite the fact that many organisations are increasingly receptive to the concept of sustainable procurement,[ii] much confusion persists regarding how sustainability can and should be integrated into purchasing practices and policies. This article considers this dilemma and attempts to provide guidance as to how economic models of valuation and decision making methodologies can be employed by procurement practitioners to successfully and transparently integrate sustainability into the procurement process.

This article will address this issue within a construction-specific context and particularly from a public sector perspective. This is because the government is a major procuring body spending in excess of $32 billion each year on contracted goods and services.[iii]
As such, the government is in the unique position to participate in the market as a purchaser, whilst simultaneously regulating the market to produce sustainable outcomes.

2.  Sustainable Procurement

The term sustainable procurement is defined in the newly introduced ISO 20400:2017, Sustainable procurement – Guidance
as “procurement that has the most positive environmental, social and economic impacts possible across the entire life cycle and that strives to minimise adverse impacts”.[v]  It is similarly defined in the Victorian Local Government Best Practice Procurement Guidelines as:

A process whereby organisations meet their needs for goods, works and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole of life basis in terms of generating benefits not only to the organisation but also to society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to the environment.

Whilst ISO 20400 and the Victorian Guidelines are relatively new, the notions underlying sustainable procurement are not. Sustainable procurement first emerged following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992[vii] which led to the introduction of “green procurement” policies, primarily across Europe, which attempted to put environmental considerations on the procurement agenda.[viii] Soon after, a movement towards “social procurement” saw a similar shift to a consideration of social outcomes and goals.[ix] However, sustainable procurement differentiates itself from its predecessors in that it attempts to holistically consider environmental, social and economic interests,[x] or “people, planet and profit”.[xi] This is known as the triple bottom line.[xii]

3.  Sustainability and the supply chain

It has been said that an organisation “is no more sustainable than its supply chain”.[xiii]  The rationale behind this statement is that the mechanics of sustainable procurement operate by purchasers attempting to indirectly inspire social and environmental benefits by exerting pressure on suppliers to reduce their own impacts.[xiv]  These impacts range from reducing pollution and energy consumption, to minimising operational costs and upholding safe labour conditions.

In the Australian context, an awareness of sustainable practices and policies within the supply chain is particularly important as its construction sector utilises thousands of products and services from innumerably different suppliers, rendering the supply chain complex and geographically diverse.[xvi] Furthermore, much of the procurement activity in Australia involves sourcing materials and or labour from Asia, an area where parts of are known to be high-risk particularly in relation to modern slavery and work health and safety.[xvii] 

Sustainable procurement necessitates a deep change in the ordinary practice of supply chain management and often, in an organisation’s supply chain network itself.[xviii] Sustainable procurement also shifts an organisation’s procurement function from a purely low cost/bottom line based system, to a system that aspires to maximise value. This strategic focus enables procurement policies to leverage sourcing functions to improve sustainability performance in the supply chain, thereby leading to long term environmental, social and economic benefits.[xix]

4.  Integrating sustainable procurement into the tender evaluation process

Support for sustainable procurement is growing with many viewing sustainability as “a fundamental principle of smart management”.[xx] However, many procurement professionals hesitate on implementation as they believe that they lack the necessary skills and knowledge.[xxi] According to a survey conducted in 2006, more than 80% of people engaged in procurement considered themselves ill equipped to undertake sustainable procurement practices.[xxii] This is likely because buyers face a new and increasingly complex challenge as they are required to compare suppliers to ascertain who can provide the product or service at the lowest price and highest quality whilst also being environmentally and socially responsible in its practices.[xxiii] This has consequently exposed the deficiencies in the current tender evaluation process in that it does not easily lend itself to a combination of environmental, social and economic considerations.[xxiv]

These deficiencies are exacerbated by the fact that the process of evaluating and comparing tender bids will vary considerably depending on the nature of the project. Therefore, any strategy to integrate sustainable procurement within the tender evaluation process will necessarily require a degree of flexibility. Despite this, the core tenets of tender evaluation, being a consideration of both price and non-price components, need not undergo substantial change in order to consider sustainable procurement interests.

The following section of this article will consider how sustainable procurement can be integrated into these traditional limbs of tender evaluation to produce greater sustainable outcomes.

4.1 Factoring price

Cost has consistently been perceived as a major barrier to the implementation of sustainable procurement.[xxv] This is likely the result of a common misconception that sustainable products and practices carry a significant premium.[xxvi] However, in many instances this premium does not exist at all, or if it does, it is mitigated by employing a wider definition of value for money.[xxvii]

Value for money is a key consideration within the public procurement space, and is a “core rule” under the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.[xxviii] This rule mandates that procurement professionals must weigh price, which is traditionally perceived as the cost of acquisition,[xxix] against other factors including the quality of the goods and services, the environmental sustainability of the goods, the flexibility of the proposal and (arguably) most importantly, the whole-of-life costs.[xxx]

It should be noted here that the terms whole-of-life costs, life-cycle costing and total cost of ownership are regarded by many as interchangeable[xxxi] and will be treated as such for the purpose of this article. However, this article will use the term “total cost of ownership” when referring to this principle this is considered to be a more accurate descriptor.

In calculating the total cost of ownership, procurement professionals should take into consideration all costs related to the product or service throughout its entire lifecycle, including the purchase price, installation costs, usage or operational costs, maintenance and repair costs and also any costs associated with the disposal of the asset or service.[xxxii] Consideration of this broad range of factors is necessary as, for many products and services, usage and maintenance costs form a predominant portion of the cost burden faced by a purchaser.[xxxiii] While consideration of total cost of ownership has traditionally been limited to consideration of the costs of acquisition, maintenance and disposal, there is also room within the process to consider broader costs such as resource depletion, and the creation of harmful and unusable by-products such as pollution and waste.[xxxiv] The recognition of such a broad spectrum of considerations pertaining to the value recognises a shift in the procurement landscape where value for money is no longer confined solely to the purchase price, or a good or service.[xxxv]

The Australian Government’s Sustainable Procurement Guide provides one example of a methodology that can be employed by individuals when evaluating the total cost of ownership under a tender bid. Firstly, the Guide suggests that the purchaser should determine the scope of the assessment and consider what factors will or will not be included in the evaluation.[xxxvi] Secondly, the purchaser should identify the different “cost elements”, being the parts of the procurement that will incur a cost.[xxxvii] This step should be conducted in accordance with value for money principles and, as such, should consider cost elements throughout the entire lifecycle.  The third step requires the purchaser to develop a cost structure whereby the cost and frequency of the identified “cost elements” are recorded.[xxxviii] In some complex tenders, it may be appropriate to draft a costings template and require any bidders to complete the form as part of the tender application process.[xxxix] The final step involves discounting, or adjusting, the future costs to appropriately align the costs with their present value.[xl] The need to discount future costs is necessary as the value of a currency fluctuates as a result of inflation. The figures produced as a result of this methodology can then be easily compared and scored by a tender assessor accordingly.

In employing the above total cost of ownership methodology or similar cost comparison tool, a purchaser can account for sustainability principles in a transparent manner, and more fully undertake its duty to ascertain the tender bid that represents the best value for money.

4.2 Factoring for non-price criteria

In order to assess a tender bid, it is common practice for the purchaser to establish a criteria intended to review the competency of the bidder in undertaking the particular project.[xli] Such criteria usually include factors such as relevant experience, past performance, personnel, technological resources and management systems.[xlii] The use of such a criteria is essential in assisting purchasers in obtaining value for money, being the “optimum combination of quality, quantity, risk, timeliness, on a whole-of-contract and whole-of-asset-life basis”.[xliii]

However, this non-price criteria methodology does have one major flaw in that it often fails to account for “externalities”.[xliv] Externalities are costs or benefits which result from the activities of an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur such consequences.[xlv] Public procuring entities may be particularly susceptible to failing to account for externalities as the departmental structure means that it is easier to view some externalities as falling within another department or organisation’s function.[xlvi] For example, the decision of one department to enter into a project with an organisation who will likely produce a higher degree of air pollution may not have any immediate effect on the project implementation itself, but may have longer term consequences for residents with regards to health issues or to the local ecosystem. Similarly, a decision to award a tender to an organisation whose supply chain manufactures products overseas rather than by a local producer may have environmental implications with regards to pollution from freight and also social consequences with regards to modern slavery. 

The detrimental consequences of failing to account for such externalities are multiplied when you consider that governments have a greater duty to “safeguard the environment and the social fabric… (and) protect the interests of vulnerable members of society and of future generations”.[xlvii]  Therefore, consideration of externalities within the tender evaluation process is particularly important in assessing value for money.

This article proposes two primary mechanisms that can be employed by either public or private purchasers to integrate sustainability and account for externalities in the tender evaluation process.

Hedonic Pricing Method

The hedonic pricing method is one tool that may be employed by purchasers in assessing the value of different characteristics or cost elements. Practically, hedonic pricing operates by recognising that goods or services are comprised of a “bundle of characteristics” which combine to influence the overall value of the good or service.[xlviii] To this extent, value is the sum of both the internal, external, positive and negative attributes of the good or service.[xlix] In distinguishing the value of certain characteristics within the bundle from others, the hedonic pricing method enables parties to assess the “influencing affect” of certain characteristics on the overall value of a good or service.[l] This technique is known as regression analysis[li] and is often represented by the equation:

Market price = factors (structural, locational and neighbourhood factors)[lii]

Hedonic pricing has traditionally been used in real property appraisal to measure the contribution of certain property attributes to the overall value of a property (hence the reference to neighbourhood factors above).[liii] For tenders that involve the acquisition or disposal of land, the hedonic pricing model can be used in this traditional sense. However, in this article we also propose that hedonic pricing may be employed in reviewing bids involving non-property related goods or services in order to give insight regarding the value of a transaction. While such an application of hedonic pricing techniques is notably novel, it is being increasingly employed in various markets.[liv]

One example of a situation in which hedonic pricing may be employed in the tender evaluation process is where two tender bids are very similar except that one results in greater rates of air pollution. Under the hedonic pricing model, the two prices for the project should necessarily differ to the extent that people/society are willing to pay for a cleaner, less polluted environment. [lv] The notion of willingness to pay, and its impact on value, is therefore central to the practical operation of the hedonic pricing method.

It should however be noted here that while the hedonic pricing model can be a valuable tool for assessing externalities in a transparent and rationale manner, it can also be complex to implement and is heavily reliant on statistics and data analytics. To this end, it is perhaps most appropriately used in large-scale complex tenders involving analysis of multiple externalities.

Analytical Hierarchy Process

The analytical hierarchy process is an alternative methodology that can assist purchasers in setting priorities and managing complex decision-making processes. It does so by assisting decision makers to select the factors that are most important to the decision and generate a hierarchic structure to guide their assessment.[lvi] By organising and structuring the process in a transparent and logical manner, the analytical hierarchy process can assist purchasers in overcoming the knowledge barrier discussed earlier in this article by clarifying what to consider and at what stage to consider it.[lvii]
The analytical hierarchy process is a weighted point system which coverts subjective inputs on criteria into scores.[lviii] Practically, the analytical hierarchy process works by comparing the scores achieved by certain tender bids against a hierarchical criteria to assess which bid most effectively meets the purchaser’s needs. In this way, the analytical hierarchy process binds decision makers to follow a rational process by “synthesizing all available information about the decision in a system-wide and systematic manner”. The analytical hierarchy process has the additional benefit that, as a weighted point system, the process is inherently more familiar to procurement professionals. As such, it is likely to be more easily understood, and readily implemented, within the procurement process, as opposed to the hedonic pricing method which requires a specific knowledge base and skill set. 

An example of when use of the analytical hierarchy process might be appropriate is when an organisation is required to consider the trade-off associated with, for example, a project plan which involves substantial reliance on chemical agents, but the organisation has achieved ISO 14000 certification.[lix] The analytical hierarchy process is appropriate here as the “pairwise comparison” structure which underpins the process enables two different and unconnected elements to be compared against each other, and prioritised in a way that is justifiable, transparent and free from extraneous influences.[lx]

Saaty in Decision Making in the Analytical Hierarchy Process summarises the implementation of the analytic hierarchy process as involving four primary stages. Firstly, it is essential to define the problem and determine the nature of the knowledge/solution sought.[lxi] After this broad-picture has been established, it is then necessary to develop the hierarchy. Here, decision-makers are required to develop a criteria based on the elements affecting the decision, sub-criteria and alternatives which sit on a descending level of the hierarchy.[lxii] This process should result in a set of criteria being established which, when organised, will be used to assess the effectiveness of tender bids in meeting the procurer’s needs. The next stage involves engaging in a process of pairwise comparisons whereby each criteria is judged in pairs for their relative importance in achieving the goals established under stage one.[lxiii]

This stage necessarily requires decision-makers to “express their opinions about the value of one single pair-wise comparison at a time using a fundamental scale.”[lxiv] Rankings are then made using a numerical scale ranging from 1 to 9 where a score of 1 represents that the two criteria are of equal importance and 9 means that the first criteria is strongly preferred over the second criteria.[lxv] This process should result in a matrix which converts qualitative judgements into quantitative values.[lxvi]  Finally, decision-makers are then instructed to weigh the priorities obtained in stage 3’s pairwise comparisons against those in the level immediately below.[lxvii] Repeat this descending comparison for each element, adding its weighed values, so that an overall global priority matrix is established.[lxviii]

If followed, the analytical hierarchy process will enable purchasers to “identify, quantify, assess, and select the best supplier in terms of both operational performance (cost, quality, delivery, technology, etc.) and environmental performance (reducing waste and maximising resource efficiency.”[lxix] Further to this, in the context of sustainable procurement, the analytical hierarchy process will also enable the quantification of values related to social outcomes such as a prioritisation of suppliers engaging in local production, or those with clean records in relation to modern slavery. 

5.  Conclusion

When faced with the reality that “there is no alternative to sustainable development”,[lxx] procurement practitioners are increasingly being required to consider how sustainability can and should be integrated into the tender evaluation process. This necessarily requires procuring entities to consider the definition of sustainability and whether best practice requires not only organisational compliance, but conformity within all levels of the supply chain. Further to this, practitioners are also required to consider how, on a practical level, sustainable procurement can be undertaken within an organisation’s established processes.

To this end, this article has proposed three methods that may be employed to effectively and transparently integrate sustainable procurement within the tender evaluation process. The first of these methods involves factoring sustainability into the calculation of price by employing a total cost of ownership assessment. The second method involves using the hedonic pricing method to moderate value by assessing and considering externalities. Finally, this article also suggests that practitioners may employ the analytical hierarchy process to develop a weighted scoring system which considers and priorities a range of values, including those embodied within sustainable procurement.

The authors hope that this article encourages procurement professionals to consider implementing sustainable procurement within tender evaluations by employing the above techniques. By engaging in practical and meaningful implementation, the “quest for sustainability”[lxxi] can be transformed from a perceived burden to an opportunity for innovation, development, and greater global social and environmental outcomes for both current and future generations. 

Authors: Scott Alden & Georgia Appleby (with research assistance from Lauren Stables) 

*This article originally appeared in the Australian Construction Law journal, a LexisNexis publication.

[i] Kate Harris and Shaila Divakarla, ‘Supply Chain Risk to Reward: Responsible Procurement and the Role of Ecolabels’ (2017) 180
Procedia Engineering 1603, 1606.
[ii] Christopher McCrudden, ‘Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes’ (2004) 28 Natural Resources Forum – A United Nations Sustainable Development Journal , 257-297, 257.
[iii] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 6.
[iv] Stephen Brammer and Helen Walker, ‘Sustainable Procurement in the Public Sector: An International Comparative Study’ (2010) 31(4)
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 452, 453.
[v] International Organisational for Standardisation (ISO) ISO 20400:2017, Sustainable procurement – Guidance, (April 2017) https://www.iso.org/standard/63026.html.
[vi] State Government Victoria, ‘Victorian Local Government Best Practice Procurement Guidelines 2013’ (Guidelines, Victorian Local Government, 2013) 15 (‘Guidelines 2013’).
[vii] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 6.
[viii] Christopher McCrudden, ‘Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes’ (2004) 28 Natural Resources Forum –
A United Nations Sustainable Development Journal, 257-297, 257.
[ix] Christopher McCrudden, ‘Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes’ (2004) 28 Natural Resources Forum – A United Nations Sustainable Development Journal, 257-297, 257.
[x] Cathy Berry and Shaun McCarthy, Guide to Sustainable Procurement in Construction (CIRIA, 2011) 5.
[xi] Markus Milne and Rob Gray, ‘W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting’ (2013) 118 J Bus Ethics 13-29, 18.
[xii] Markus Milne and Rob Gray, ‘W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting’ (2013) 118 J Bus Ethics 13-29, 13.
[xiii] D. R. Krause, S. Vachon and R. D. Klassen, ‘Special topic forum on sustainable supply chain management: Introduction and reflections on the role of purchasing management’ (2009) 45(4) Journal of Supply Chain Management 18-24, 18.
[xiv] Stephen Brammer and Helen Walker, ‘Sustainable Procurement in the Public Sector: An International Comparative Study’ (2010) 31(4)
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 452, 455.
[xv] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 7.
[xvi] Kate Harris and Shaila Divakarla, ‘Supply Chain Risk to Reward: Responsible Procurement and the Role of Ecolabels’ (2017) 180
Procedia Engineering 1603, 1606.
[xvii] Kate Harris and Shaila Divakarla, ‘Supply Chain Risk to Reward: Responsible Procurement and the Role of Ecolabels’ (2017) 180
Procedia Engineering 1603, 1606.
[xviii] Florence Crespin-Mazet and Emmanuelle Dontenwill, ‘Sustainable procurement: Building legitimacy in the supply network’ (2012) 18
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 207.
[xix] Oracle, ’Embedding Sustainability in the Sourcing and Procurement Process’ (White Paper, Oracle, April 2015) 3.  
[xx] Andrew Savitz and Karl Weber, The Triple Bottom Line (Jossey-Bass, 2006)14.
[xxi] Stephen Brammer and Helen Walker, ‘Sustainable Procurement in the Public Sector: An International Comparative Study’ (2010) 31(4)
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 452, 456.
[xxii] Paul Snell, Struggle with Sustainability (16 November 2006) Supply Management <https://www.cips.org/supply-management/news/2006/november/struggle-with-sustainability/>. 
[xxiii] Robert Handfield et al., ‘Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (2002) 141 European Journal of Operational Research 70-87, 71.
[xxiv] Robert Handfield et al., ‘Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (2002) 141 European Journal of Operational Research 70-87, 73.
[xxv] Darryl Iles and Pail Ryall, ‘How Can the United Kingdom Construction Industry Implement Sustainable Procurement Strategies?’ (2016) 2
Association of Researchers in Construction Management 1121, 11123.
[xxvi] Forum for the Future, ‘Buying a Better World: Sustainable Public Procurement’ (Report, Forum for the Future, December 2007) 12.
[xxvii] Forum for the Future, ‘Buying a Better World: Sustainable Public Procurement’ (Report, Forum for the Future, December 2007) 12.
[xxviii] Department of Finance, Commonwealth Procurement Rules, 1 March 2017, r 4.4. 
[xxix] State Government Victoria, ‘Victorian Local Government Best Procurement Guidelines 2013’ (Guidelines, Victorian Local Government, 2013) 15, 98.
[xxx] Department of Finance, Commonwealth Procurement Rules, 1 March 2017, r 4.5.
[xxxi] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 31.
[xxxii] Oracle, ’Embedding Sustainability in the Sourcing and Procurement Process’ (White Paper, Oracle, April 2015) 3.  Australian Procurement and Construction Council, above n 13, 3.
[xxxiii] European Commission, Buying Green! A Handbook on Green Public Procurement (European Union, 2nd ed, 2011). 
[xxxiv] Jonathan Linton, Robert Klassen and Vaidyanathan Jayaraman, ‘Sustainable supply chains: An introduction’ (2007) 25
Journal of Operations Management 1080.
[xxxv] Dacian Dragos and Bogdana Neamtu, ‘Sustainable Public Procurement: Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in the New EU Directive Proposal (2013) 1
European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review 20.
[xxxvi] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 34.
[xxxvii] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 34.
[xxxviii] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 35.
[xxxix] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 35.
[xl] Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2013) Sustainable Procurement Guide, 35.
[xli] Department of Treasury and Finance, ‘Guidelines on Tender Evaluation using Weighted Criteria for Building Works and Services’ (Guidelines, Department of Treasury and Finance of the Tasmanian Government, May 2014) 4.
[xlii] Department of Treasury and Finance, ‘Guidelines on Tender Evaluation using Weighted Criteria for Building Works and Services’ (Guidelines, Department of Treasury and Finance of the Tasmanian Government, May 2014) 4.
[xliii] State Government Victoria, ‘Victorian Local Government Best Procurement Guidelines 2013’ (Guidelines, Victorian Local Government, 2013) 15 (‘Guidelines 2013’) 96.
[xliv] Dacian Dragos and Bogdana Neamtu, ‘Sustainable Public Procurement: Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in the New EU Directive Proposal (2013) 1
European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review 20.
[xlv] Marleen Lodder, Roebin Huffenreuter, Michael Braungart and Diana den Held, ‘Regenerative Sustainable Development: Towards a Triple Top Line Approach and Increasing Positive Externalities (Working Paper, 5th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, August 27-29 2014) 3.
[xlvi] Forum for the Future, ‘Buying a Better World: Sustainable Public Procurement’ (Report, Forum for the Future, December 2007) 13.
[xlvii] Christopher McCrudden, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Procurement’ (Working Paper No 9, University of Oxford Faculty of Law, April 2006) 12.
[xlviii] Ben Monty and Mark Skidmore, ‘Hedonic Pricing and Willingness to Pay for Bed and Breakfast Amenities in Southeast Wisconsin’ (2003) 42 Journal of Travel Research 196.
[xlix] Rotimi Abidoye and Albert Chan, ‘Critical review of hedonic pricing model application in property price appraisal: A case of Nigeria’ (2017) 6
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 251.
[l] Matt Monson, ‘Valuation Using Hedonic Pricing Models’ (2009) 7 Cornell Real Estate Review 64.
[li] Ibid.
[lii] Rotimi Abidoye and Albert Chan, ‘Critical review of hedonic pricing model application in property price appraisal: A case of Nigeria’ (2017) 6
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 251.
[liii] Ibid.
[liv] Sofia Lundberg, ‘Influence of Green Public Procurement on Bids and Prices’ (Work in Progress, the National Institute of Economic Research, March 2016) 8.
[lv] V Reddy, Matthew Kurian and Reza Ardakanian, Life-cycle Cost Approach For Management of Environmental Resources, (Springer International Publishing, 2015) ch 2, 32.
[lvi] Thomas Saaty, ‘How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process’, (1990) 48 European Journal of Operational Research 9.
[lvii]  Ibid.
[lviii] Robert Handfield et.al, ‘Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (2002) 141 European Journal of Operational Research 75.
[lix] Robert Handfield et.al, ‘Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (2002) 141 European Journal of Operational Research 76.
[lx] Patrick Sik-Wah Fong and Sonia Kit-Yung Choi, ‘Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process’ (2000) 18
Construction Management and Economics 549.
[lxi] Thomas Saaty, ‘Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process’ (2008) 1 International Journal of Services Sciences 85.
[lxii] Patrick Sik-Wah Fong and Sonia Kit-Yung Choi, ‘Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process’ (2000) 18
Construction Management and Economics 549.
[lxiii] R.W. Saaty, ‘The analytic hierarchy process – what it is and how it is used’ (1987) 9 Mathematical Modelling 163.
[lxiv] Adebayo Oladapo and Henry Odeyinka, ‘Tender evaluation methods in construction projects: a comparative case study’ (2006) 13(1)
Acta Structili a 106, 113.
[lxv] Robert Handfield et.al, ‘Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (2002) 141 European Journal of Operational Research 79.
[lxvi] MM Akarte et al., ‘Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process’ (2001) 52 Journal of the Operational Research Society 516. 
[lxvii] Thomas Saaty, ‘Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process’ (2008) 1 International Journal of Services Sciences 85.
[lxviii] Thomas Saaty, ‘Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process’ (2008) 1 International Journal of Services Sciences 85.
[lxix] Robert Handfield et.al, ‘Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (2002) 141 European Journal of Operational Research 74.
[lxx] Ram Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad and M.R. Rangaswami, ‘Why Sustainability is Now the Key Driver of Innovation; (2009) Harvard Business Review.
[lxxi]  Ibid. 

Contacts:
Sydney
Scott Alden, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0419 
E: scott.alden@holdingredlich.com

Christine Jones, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0477 
E: christine.jones@holdingredlich.com

Helena Golovanoff, Partner 
T: +61 2 8083 0443 
E: helena.golovanoff@holdingredlich.com

Brisbane
Troy Lewis, Partner & National Head of Construction and Infrastructure 
T: +61 7 3135 0614 
E: troy.lewis@holdingredlich.com

Stephen Burton, Partner 
T: +61 7 3135 0604 
E: stephen.burton@holdingredlich.com

Suzy Cairney, Partner 
T: +61 7 3135 0684 
E: suzy.cairney@holdingredlich.com

Melbourne
Stephen Natoli, Partner 
T: +61 3 9321 9796 
E: stephen.natoli@holdingredlich.com

Kyle Siebel, Partner 
T: +61 3 9321 9877 
E: kyle.siebel@holdingredlich.com

Disclaimer
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. 

Share this