CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Public Procurement and PolicyPublic Policy and Administration ResearchSustainable Supply Chain Management

Stewardship and administrative capacity in green public procurement in the Czech Republic: evidence from a large-N survey

Open access
Plaček, Michal, Valentinov, Vladislav, del Campo, Cristina, Vaceková, Gabriela, Ochrana, František, Šumpíková, Markéta·2021·Environmental Sciences Europe
DOI 10.1186/s12302-021-00534-7

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: The uptake of green public procurement in the Czech Republic is known to lag behind the European standards. We trace this condition back to the adverse effects of a specific type of decision-making trade-off faced by the Czech public procurement officials, namely the trade-off between stewardship and administrative compliance. The trade-off means that public procurers are aware of administrative risks and complications attendant on the conscientious non-perfunctory implementation of green public procurement. Results: The overall result is that public procurers ultimately come to prioritize the contract criterion of the lowest price over ecological criteria. The existence of this trade-off has been generally confirmed by the results of a unique large-N survey of more than 1100 respondents from a group of local public officials and mayors in the Czech Republic. Conclusion: We have found that the decision-making of Czech public procurers is affected by the trade-off between stewardship and administrative compliance, which turn out to be mutually conflicting goals. On the one hand, many public procurers do possess a stewardship motivation that shapes their positive attitude to GPP. On the other hand, they are painfully aware of, and seek to forestall, administrative risks and complications attendant on the conscientious, i.e., non-perfunctory, implementation of GPP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12302-021-00534-7

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Plaček, M., Valentinov, V., del Campo, C., Vaceková, G., Ochrana, F., & Šumpíková, M.
Affiliations
  • Charles University (CZ)
  • Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (DE)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
  • Ambis University (CZ)
Corresponding author
Plaček, Michal
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Sciences Europe
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-08-16
Volume
33
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2190-4715 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-4707
DOI
10.1186/s12302-021-00534-7
OpenAlex
W3166293267
Cited by
36
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Sciences Europe (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Grantová Agentura České Republiky (GA19-06020S)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Keywords
green public procurement, stewardship, administrative compliance, administrative risk, ecological criteria, local government officials, Czech Republic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review