#47: You Write Sustainability Into the Contract. Does Anyone Actually Check?
BESTEK - The Public Procurement PodcastShow Notes
Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring excerpts from the “Sustainability in Performance of Public Contracts” panel, moderated by Dr Ezgi Uysal (PurpLE postdoctoral researcher, University of Copenhagen), at the Public Procurement & Contracts Conference hosted by the PurpLE Project in Copenhagen (22–23 June 2026).
The episode asks what happens after sustainability is written into a public contract, whether as environmental criteria, social clauses or ESG language: at the performance stage, does anyone enforce, audit or check it? Marta’s answer is “not yet”, but the panel sets out what checking would take.
Panellists Professor Sope Williams (Stellenbosch University; George Washington University), Professor Gustavo Piga (University of Rome Tor Vergata), Associate Professor Helen Yu (Swansea University), and Assistant Professor Désirée Klingler (University of St. Gallen) discuss why a sustainability clause binds once it is in the contract, whether voluntary or mandatory; South Africa’s Medupi and Kusile power stations and why vague “best efforts” wording cannot be enforced; the trade-offs behind Sardinia’s wind turbines; Swiss data showing how little changed after the law did; and the UK’s Procurement Act 2023 and new NHS value-based procurement guidance for medical technology, which sets a minimum weighting for social value in tender scoring.
More from BESTEK - The Public Procurement Podcast
Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring the first half of the “Contracts in the Defence and Security Sector” panel from the PurpLE Project’s Public Procurement & Contracts Conference in Copenhagen (22–23 June 2026), moderated by Associate Professor Michał Kania (University of Silesia in Katowice).
Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring clips from “Remedial Systems in Public Contracts Law vs Non-Legislative Measures”, a panel she chaired at the Public Procurement & Contracts Conference in Copenhagen (PurpLE Project, 22–23 June 2026).
Host Dr Marta Andhov presents an aperitif episode of the Bestek public procurement podcast, featuring the conversation that opened Day 2 of the Public Procurement & Contracts Conference (PurpLE Project, Copenhagen, 22–23 June 2026), chaired by Grith Skovgaard Ølykke (Partner, Poul Schmith/Kammeradvokaten). It is a first for the aperitif series: Bestek co-host Professor Willem Janssen (Utrecht University and University of Groningen) is on the panel. The episode asks whether EU reform is making procurement better or simpler, or just adding more rules. Grith sums up the European Commission’s evaluation of the 2014 Public Procurement Directives: the framework “appears to be functioning, just not in the way one might have hoped”, and is only “partially equipped” to deliver. Willem’s study for the Commission mapped 62 EU regulations and directives that now touch procurement, with 20 more in the pipeline. He argues for prioritisation, with sustainability first, and hopes the revision brings “more demanding rules, but also less rigid rules”: strict on green and social goals, flexible on procedure. Professor Roberto Caranta (University of Turin), who also wrote a study for the Commission, says EU priorities need money the EU budget does not have, so procurement has become one stone aimed at 62 pigeons. He argues there is only so much simplification a complex subject allows, and that much of the rigidity comes from contracting authorities, not Brussels: many fear courts of auditors and oversight bodies. The full session ranged more widely, with a lightning round of quick questions and answers. We invite listeners to continue the discussion with us on LinkedIn.
In this Bestek aperitif episode, Dr Marta Andhov continues a discussion from the PurpLE Project Conference panel “Arbitration in Public Contracts” (Copenhagen, June 2026) by focusing on whether arbitral awards in public contract disputes can actually be enforced against contracting authorities. She distinguishes between winning an arbitration and getting paid, and features panel insights from Cesar Pareira (President, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, São Paulo), Roxana Vornicu (Senior Lecturer, King’s College London; Sîrbu and Vornicu Law, Romania), and Nicholas Jobidon (Professor of Public Law, Université du Québec).
In this solo “aperitif” episode of Bestek, Marta Andhov shares highlights from the closing panel on arbitration in public contracts at the PurpLE Conference on Public Procurement and Contracts in Copenhagen, chaired by Peter Trepte (University of Nottingham), supported by the Dreyers Foundation and funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. The episode focuses on the threshold question of whether public contract disputes should be allowed to go to arbitration, given its implications for cost, speed, expertise, and the tension between confidentiality and transparency. Roxana Vornicu (King’s College London; Sîrbu and Vornicu Law, Romania) argues that arbitration fits internationalised construction supply chains and that confidentiality can align with protections already found in procurement law. Cesar Pareira (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, São Paulo) emphasises efficiency and fairness, and later stresses that transparency in state contract arbitration is essential for public scrutiny and trust. Nicholas Jobidon (Université du Québec) warns against removing judicial review and notes that arbitration is useful but not for every case. Miguel Assis Raimundo (University of Lisbon) compares France, Spain, and Portugal and suggests that stronger institutional architecture can address many of the fears around arbitration. Marta closes by drawing the threads together, concluding that the panel offers no flat yes or no, and that the answer comes down to conditions, not a verdict.