Public sector procurement objectives are quite predictable and intuitive – find savings for other departments to be able to meet their budgets. Why do municipalities, as an example, have a procurement department? The rationale is that supply chain professionals know how to put deals together, can understand the world of competitive bidding and the applicable laws, trade agreements, and principles of buying and are good at dealing with multiple contracts.

The need for municipalities to deliver value for money as it relates to infrastructure investment and operations requires a team approach. Engineers and operational staff design and procurement collaborate by putting their specifications into commercial documents for the private sector to respond to with competitive tension. We measure the performance of procurement by and large as to what the difference was on the budgeted amount and the final out-of-pocket cost. If favourable, the recognition goes to procurement.

This public sector means of doing business is based on the consumption of resources to provide goods and services to the taxpaying stakeholders. It makes sense to do this following best practice. Another concurrent opportunity is also present in each municipality. The ability to affect value on behalf of the taxpayers through procurement by engaging with social enterprises in their community.

Why should procurement take this step outside of its usual mandate and engage with social development? If a municipality is able to create meaningful employment for individuals through social enterprises, the municipality reduces its financial burden related to delivering conventional social services. By creating employment opportunities, procurement can contract for its requisite goods and/or services through social enterprises at very competitive rates meeting two important functions – providing value for money and building social capital.

What is social procurement?

Social procurement is utilizing procurement policies and practices to affect social impact. Procurement can run a competitive process and/or make a direct award to a social enterprise to deliver goods and/or services.

Social impact results in measureable improvements in the living standards of individuals, groups and communities. This is the noteworthy component of social procurement – building the social capital within the community. Society acknowledges that there will always be a requirement to provide food, shelter, clothing, and health services to those who are unable to care adequately for themselves. By removing the stigma attached to charity or conventional social services and providing meaningful work to many individuals who are typically under-employed, procurement can contribute in an important way.

What is a social enterprise?

Social enterprises are the bridge between the under-employed and the public workplace. Social enterprises operate as non-profit organizations to provide work to the under-employed, disenfranchised, or people with other employment barriers. The under-employed often have employment barriers but have the desire and capability of working. They need the opportunity. Many private sector companies are engaged with social enterprises as well.

It is not a zero sum game of taking away business from the private sector and giving work to a social enterprise. Social enterprises complement the private sector. Social enterprises usually have a targeted employee focus such as new immigrants who learn sewing and production skills; or people with mental illness who learn how to assemble and package safety kits. While some social enterprises are started with grants, few rely on those grants to continue operating. Social enterprises must be financially sustainable.

What types of goods or services can they provide?

To name a few – assembly, banners, couriers, cartage, carpentry, catering, custodial, construction, demolition, distribution, drywall, electrical, fencing, graffiti removal, landscaping, packaging, pressure washing, roofing, sewing, snow removal, tile, upholstery, window cleaning, etc.

All of these types of goods and services are required on a daily basis in all municipalities or on a seasonal basis. These contracts may be awarded under competitive bids, direct awards, or pilot programs as part of a larger economic development strategy.

Can the benefits of social procurement be quantified?

The 2013 study by Ernst & Young for Vancouver-based Atira Property Management provides a very good insight into the business case for social impact. Summarily, this report indicates that for every dollar spent with a target employee group, the social return on investment is ~$3.50! This study was based on a target group of 105 employees which had the economic multiplier effect of generating over $600,000 in the local economy.

This study revealed several key facts. Meaningful work represents a society’s values and expanding the opportunities pays dividends. There is a reduction in crime-related costs, reducing housing and shelter costs, less dependence on food banks and social assistance and an improvement in health, quality of life, and employability. Most of the target group’s living expenses are spent locally in the form of taxes and with local retailers which is a redistribution of the wealth to the community.

The message here is that public procurement should work with social enterprises to expand the opportunities to continue this type of success. It’s not that this isn’t being done today – it’s just that there is so much room for expanding the role for supply chain professionals in this area. This implies that how we measure the performance of procurement may need to include social engagement as a factor.

Another quantitative example in the lower mainland is provided through a recent report by Starworks Packaging & Assembly. Starting with 7 employees 15-years ago, it has paid $1.8M in wages and now employees ~45 employees with a payroll of $250K per year. This could be extrapolated to represent a social impact of $750K per year!

Starworks provides services to public and private sector organizations. Starworks offers high quality services at very competitive rates. Their employees are paid at minimum wage rates within a safe working environment. Many of their employees faced employment barriers but were given the chance to show their worth.

Starworks’ employees pay taxes and contribute to the local economy through their living expenses. They support local businesses, arts and entertainment. Their self-esteem improves through the meaningful employment they have and this in turn provides them with a healthier and more independent life style. The attention is on the prevention rather than the cure.

Public procurement should seek input form social service specialists and economists when engaging with social enterprises and when evaluating the competitiveness of their proposals. Being a tax-supported organization, the public entity should explore the many ways to contract with social enterprises which are trying to build and contribute to the community social and economic interests. Social enterprises are helping to reduce operating costs for several branches or levels of government and should be viewed as an asset and not just an expense in terms of fiscal management.

How do I begin to engage with social enterprises?

They operate the same as any small business. They have a need for sales and revenues and welcome the business opportunities afforded by the various levels of government. Holding forums with social enterprises is a great way to find out who they are and what they can do. Reverse trade shows are also another means of contacting social enterprises. Meeting face to face and looking for the mutual benefits is a start.

Buy Social Canada is an organization with a focus on building social and economic development through social enterprises. They have the expertise and contacts to facilitate business partnerships. Buy Social sees the important role which can be played by procurement professionals.

Who are some of these social enterprises?      

The Vancouver lower mainland has many including: CleanStart, The Cleaning Solution, Common Thread, Embers, H.A.V.E., Mission-Possible and Starworks Packaging. They offer a wide range of goods and services.

Does this mean more work for procurement?

I would argue that it is not more work – it is different work. It is less focused on cost savings and more on enabling social value. Juxtaposing social and economic development along with environmental issues, really adds value. As procurement is the conduit between governmental needs for goods and services and the market, it is a natural move for procurement to adopt a more assertive role. The buyer becomes a broker in these situations. Brokering implies finding the right social enterprise to provide the services at competitive rates and capacity and matching them to the specific organizational needs. Brokering can also mean having a portion of the overall contracted goods or services with much larger sales organizations be supplied through social enterprises in local community partnerships.

Social enterprises that have been in business for a while can be treated much the same as other established businesses. They can be measured on price, quality, delivery and service performance. The distinction of the social enterprise is its non-profit business model and its purpose-based mission statement. Social enterprises are not impeded by the need to generate profits neither are they operating to subsidize social services. Social enterprises can be judged on their own merit.

As public procurement is funded directly by taxpayers, for the good of the taxpayers, it makes good sense to look at the ways to provide services through social enterprises to optimize the benefits to the taxpayers. That is buying, into the future.

---

Larry Berglund, SCMP, MBA, has been involved in supply management for 35 years, with experience in the forest industry, public health care, municipal government, university operations, and consulting services. He has taught accredited courses at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, the University College of the Fraser Valley, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and UBC Continuing Studies, as well as supply management courses, seminars, webinars, and workshops for business and professional associations.

Larry writes on a wide variety of supply chain topics including operations management, negotiations, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, inventory management, and strategic management. He also conducts onsite operational reviews. Larry is the principal of Presentations Plus Training & Consulting Inc.

During the 1940s, we were promoting campaigns for the widespread use of chemical pesticides with jingles like “DDT is good for me!” and videos showing people literally eating DDT by the spoonful:

In retrospect, of course, we know that we messed up.  We messed up bad.  Yet we kept developing and distributing more and more chemicals, which often end up becoming harmful environmental contaminants. Why does it seem as though we have failed to learn our lesson time and time again? 

Other posts in this series: • Nadine Gudz • Alexa Pitoulis • Adam Lynes-Ford • Jessica Knowler • Mandy McDougall Check out last month’s series

Background

Environmental contamination is often treated as a local issue; however, it is rarely such.  Many contaminants are subject to long-range environmental transport, either through the atmosphere or ocean currents.  Many persistent organic pollutants (POPs), like DDT for instance, will be transported from lower latitudes (i.e., the tropics) through a process referred to as the ‘grasshopper effect’, and are eventually deposited in the Arctic, where they remain. Watch video

Many of these POPs are highly toxic and bioaccumulative, and will build up in very high concentrations within the fatty tissues of high trophic level organisms (i.e., near the top of the food web).  Ultimately, this negatively impacts the health of northern populations who often depend on these animals as part of their diet.  The big picture here is that when a chemical is manufactured or released, say, in North America, natural Earth processes will take what is temporarily a local issue, and distribute it such that environmental contamination becomes a much bigger global problem. 

Contaminants can end up in northern, Arctic cities where the concept of a ‘city’ itself is quite different from that elsewhere in the world.  In Arctic communities, hunting remains very important and crucial for families’ well being.  Often consuming animals with extremely high contaminant concentrations may impact northern cities more so than other urban cities where contaminants may not accumulate as much.

Let’s think about a contaminant like DDT.  DDT was believed to be completely safe for widespread use.  It was even sprayed over family picnics and rubbed in children’s hair to show that there were no immediate toxic effects.

Fast forward a few years, when the long-term bioaccumulative and toxic effects of DDT become known.  Newer contaminants have followed in the same footsteps; ‘surprise’ adverse environmental and health effects become known after the chemical becomes environmentally ubiquitous – but the damage has already been done. 

Development of New Compounds

The development of new, anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) compounds focuses on practicality and usefulness in the market – and understandably so. But this process should always keep in mind the long-term impacts these compounds may have for the health of the environment and ecosystems (including human health).  This is a key element of new economies – designing chemicals with the health of the planet in mind, not just the benefits or convenience it will bring to its users. 

Currently, the approach to regulating contaminants in Canada involves an initial universal screening process, assessing health and environmental safety.  Any modifications to a compound’s status are made if future research or events determine that it poses a threat to ecosystem health.  This has been flagged by some as a problem, as it is said to assume a ‘market now, study later’ approach. 

Consumer education is important to consider in general, especially for terminology.  Notice how I refrain from using ‘toxin’ throughout.  That’s because it doesn’t mean what everyone seems to think it means.  Often times (I’d say about 99% of the time), people are actually referring to ‘toxicants’.  Toxins are of plant or animal origin (i.e., biological in nature), and is not the correct term for human-made contaminants – fun fact!

Environmental Contamination and New Economies – Moving Forward With Remediation

New economies must include a larger focus on holistic remediation efforts.  Remediation efforts usually focus on a few contaminants known to be present in a specific area.  Larger-scale remediation efforts should include a search for and cleanup of all contaminants of significant concern for ecosystem and human health, rather than only taking care of specific chemicals as prerequisites for a project or development. If done properly (e.g., on a municipal level), there can be a lot of success in widespread remediation, which would hopefully encourage chemists, engineers, toxicologists ecologists, and others with the tools to collaborate and invest efforts into large-scale remediation.  If remediation were done on municipal scales, with the appropriate funding, it could become much more efficient and tackle a large issue at once instead of breaking it down into smaller pieces, which does not always eliminate the full issue of environmental contamination.

We must keep in mind that localized decisions regarding environmental contaminants are sometimes necessary.  For instance, DDT continues to be used in tropical areas of the world where malaria persists.

It’s essentially a trade-off between reducing the chance of contracting a potentially deadly disease, or risking long-term adverse effects of a bioaccumulative, toxic compound.  Understandably, the choice between immediate well-being and potential long-term health effects will lean towards short-term benefits (i.e., survival), and risking health problems in the future is a risk many governing bodies and individuals would be willing to take.

Urban dwellers must also question chemical alternatives.  When you see a water bottle labeled “BPA free”, is there simply another less infamous toxicant in its place that has just yet to get the same kind of negative attention as BPA?  Conversely, we cannot get so caught up in a product’s ingredients that we forget the first rule of toxicology: the dose makes the poison.  Everything is toxic at some doses – even water.  As consumers, it is not practical to base our purchasing and economic decisions solely based on an ingredient list.  Also be wary of ‘green washing’ – when products marketed as ‘green’ or ‘environmentally-friendly’ are either exaggerated or really no different from the ‘regular’ (and usually cheaper) version of the product.  See the CBC Marketplace story here: https://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2011-episodes/lousy-labels; this should give you an idea of how the ‘green’ chemical movement really operates, how much of it is true, and how to be a smart chemical consumer in general.

Environmental health, through proper management of toxicants, is a significant component of real wealth.  How much does substantial material and financial wealth really matter in the long-term if it is accompanied by constant exposure to nasty contaminants such as metals, toxic POPs, and other dangerous chemicals (including carcinogens and endocrine disruptors)? It is time to see the benefits in holistic ecosystem health – large scale environmental remediation is just one component.

---

Mandy McDougall is currently completing her Masters degree in Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, in Vancouver, Canada, and conducting her research project within the field of environmental toxicology.  Afterwards, she plans on attending law school to focus on bridging the gap between science and environmental policy within Canada.  She is passionate about contributing to insightful projects designed to improve the state of our environment on both small and large scales.

This blog is part of the ‘Voices of New Economies‘ series within Cities for People – an experiment in advancing the movement toward urban resilience and livability through connecting innovation networks.

The Voices of New Economies series is collectively curated by One Earth and The Canadian CED Network.

This series is an exploration of what it takes to build the economies we need – ones that work for people, places, and the planet. We are connecting key actors, finding patterns, noting interesting differences, and highlighting key concepts and initiatives. Together, this series offers insights into the new economies movement as it develops.

Global Vision for a Social Solidarity Economy: Convergences and Differences in Concepts, Definitions and Frameworks 

The Global Vision for a Social Solidarity Economy: Convergences and Differences in Concepts, Definitions and Frameworks paper released by the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of the Social Solidarity Economy is part of a process of debate and consultation that has been carried out throughout the years. Reflecting on practices, concepts and frameworks shaping social solidarity economy (SSE) is an ongoing process since the first meeting on the globalization of solidarity in Lima in 1997. The vision of SSE has been steadfast, but underlying concepts, definitions and frameworks have, and continue to evolve.

The actors of SSE are invited to use this document as a tool for reference, reflection and education in their activities for building and promoting an alternative model of development based on SSE. The global vision paper lays out the main elements that arose from the discussions and identifies areas to explore further.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE GLOBAL VISION PAPER

• How is SSE defined in relations to its practices?
• What are the criteria and indicators for defining an initiative as being a SSE initiative?
• What different organizational/institutional forms/expressions are SSE and which are not SSE?
• How does SSE conceive development and (de)growth?
• What is the relationship of SSE with social movements?
• What is the relationship of SSE with capitalism and capitalist market?
• How does SSE address Sustainability and Ecology?
• What is the relationship of SSE with other “adjective” economies? (eg. green Economy; social enterprise; creative economy; popular economy; territory (or local) economy; community economy)

From the Introduction:

This paper is part of an ongoing process of discussion and debate about the concepts, definitions and framework of the social solidarity economy (SSE). RIPESS (Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of SSE) has engaged in this process from its first Global Forum on SSE in 1997 through to the present. The vision of SSE has been steadfast, but underlying concepts, definitions and frameworks have, and continue to evolve. In 2012, the RIPESS Board agreed to make the RIPESS Global Vision one of the main themes of the 5th Meeting of the SSE which was held in Manila in October 2013. We organized a global consultation process in which an earlier draft of this paper was widely circulated and each continent took on the responsibility of moving the dialogue through a mixture of live meetings, conference calls and electronic communication. There was also an electronic forum on the RIPESS website that was open for comments from anyone throughout the world. At the Manila Meeting there were around 100 people who participated in a lively and productive World Café exercise to further explore, discuss and share their views on the meaning of the SSE. This paper builds on the whole of this process, as well as the RIPESS Charter that was adopted in 2008 which lays out our values, mission and vision. 

Download RIPESS’ Global Vision for a Social Solidarity Economy

For Women Transforming Cities, the present-day economic reality is one of increasing inequality that has disparate outcomes for marginalized communities. This is to say that economic inequality tends to fall along gendered and racialized lines (to name only two). Such inequality is echoed in the Canadian labour force, which is still arranged along these divisions, and gendered and racialized arrangements closely coincide with our focus on non-renewable natural resource extraction–an industry that largely employs men with access to good wages, benefits and entitlements, and one that we know heavily contributes to climate change. Combating climate change and inequality is a simultaneous battle, and formulating visions of a new economy need to be equally green and just. Natural and social costs of economic growth must be internalized into economic valuations because if we move towards making our economy green without addressing social inequities, we will be replicating the same structures that reinforce the exploitation of both the environment and the labour of women and marginalized groups.

Other posts in this series: • Nadine Gudz • Alexa Pitoulis • Adam Lynes-Ford • Jessica Knowler • Mandy McDougall Check out last month’s series

What are some key elements of “new economies”?

Key elements of a green and just economy include:

• Reclaiming the union advantage: we need to recognize the vital role unions have played in women’s, and other marginalized communities’, equality and economic independence. Collective bargaining is important for job security as well as securing benefits and entitlements–all of which will ensure a more equitable labour force.   
• Decreasing precarious labour practices: increasing the amount of temporary, part-time, and casual work will continue deeply gendered and racialized divisions in the labour force. We need to properly value the care economy, increase minimum wages to living wages, attain pay equity, resist two-tiered wage systems that penalize younger workers, and ensure the consistent implementation of labour laws and regulations.
• Strengthening social infrastructure: access to affordable childcare, public transit, housing, and community and recreation services all play a vital role in equitable and green cities. In essence, accessible public services in the community that are vital for ensuring social equality are easily co-opted for the goals of a green economy. 

How does this relate to cities?

According to the 2011 census, 81% of Canada’s population lives in urban centres. Clearly then, transforming our cities into gender-sensitive, equitable and green economic centres is a priority. Cities drive the Canadian economy and Canada needs to recognize the importance of cities and invest in the well-being of local residents to foster a sustainable and inclusive future. Central to sustainability and inclusion is the need to focus on and deliver on the needs of the diversity of its residents equitably – including in terms of a good job and a decent living wage.

Grassroots Challenges to Inequitable Policymaking

Women Transforming Cities aims to transform our cities to work for all self-identifying women and girls by amplifying the voices of women and raising their issues for municipal policymakers. We hold grassroots-focused monthly cafes where women and allies in the community come together to discuss issues and brainstorm solutions that would make our communities more equitable. We also partner with other local organizations and service providers to increase the pressure on municipal policymakers to put an intersectional lens on all of their work that we believe will help implement the changes we want to see in our communities. Looking at public policies intersectionally means that we deny the belief that any one policy will affect all citizens (and groups of citizens) in the same way. Using an intersectional lens will account for disproportionately unequal outcomes of public policies, allows us to asses where inequalities are stemming from, and ultimately, allows us to make specific policy recommendations that would remedy such problems.

WTC is also part of the national coalition, Up for Debate 2015, which advocates for a federal leaders debate about women’s issues in the upcoming federal election. The debate will be an important part in getting politicians to address the measurably unequal economic outcomes of current Canadian policies for marginalized groups in both urban and rural communities.

What does real wealth mean to you?

Real wealth means self-identifying women and girls having real social, economic and political power, with the right to live in a healthy environment. If security, housing, childcare, transit or public spaces are either unaffordable or inaccessible then there are few real choices for women in structuring their lives and the lives of their families in our cities.

---

Jessica Knowler is a board member of Women Transforming Cities, a Vancouver-based organization that works to transform our cities to be inclusive of all women and girls, through community engagement, inclusive policies and equitable representation. Her community service work and research interests include the connections between precarious labour, food security and sustainable economies. The report Working Women, Working Poor (2014) by fellow WTC board member, Prabha Khosla, is the foundation for Women Transforming Cities’ position on new economies. The report can be found here: https://www.unifor.org/en/working-women-working-poor

This blog is part of the ‘Voices of New Economies‘ series within Cities for People – an experiment in advancing the movement toward urban resilience and livability through connecting innovation networks.

The Voices of New Economies series is collectively curated by One Earth and The Canadian CED Network.

This series is an exploration of what it takes to build the economies we need – ones that work for people, places, and the planet. We are connecting key actors, finding patterns, noting interesting differences, and highlighting key concepts and initiatives. Together, this series offers insights into the new economies movement as it develops.