Governments continue to face pressure to achieve multiple policy goals, underscoring the need to effectively translate these objectives into suitable infrastructure procurement strategies, while managing trade-offs between economic efficiency, competition, and broader policy aims. Broader policy objectives can be integrated at different stages of the infrastructure procurement cycle, e.g. during the early stages of the specification of requirements, in the bidder selection phase to integrate policy outcomes into award criteria and contractual performance objectives, and at the contract management stage to include specific clauses related to policy objectives in the contracts. Moreover, performance measurement frameworks in infrastructure procurement can help governments assess whether their procurement systems are achieving their intended objectives, while supporting them in continuously developing, implementing, and revising their policies, processes, and tools (OECD, 2025).
SEA countries have taken steps to integrate environmental considerations into procurement processes for infrastructure. The four SEA countries for which data are available provide guidance on purchasing products and services with lower environmental impacts throughout their entire life cycle, as do Japan, Korea and New Zealand (Table 4.7). Notably, Singapore provides infrastructure-specific guidance on this topic. Only 3 of 29 OECD Member countries have guidance of this sort in place. Monitoring of broad objectives is typically conducted through tangible obligations assigned to public procurers. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore require the inclusion of environmental requirements in the technical specifications of infrastructure projects. Eighteen of 27 OECD countries have similar requirements in place. Indonesia and Singapore also require that environmental objectives be included in the framework used to evaluate bids. Currently, only 14 of 27 OECD countries have similar requirements in place. Indonesia and the Philippines also require that suppliers who are awarded a contract follow relevant international standards and codes (i.e. International Organization for Standardization [ISO], International Federation of Consulting Engineers [FIDIC]) through contract clauses.
The four SEA countries utilise strategic public procurement to advance policy objectives, including innovation and responsible business conduct. However, none have established standardised frameworks to measure progress and success against these objectives (Figure 4.4). This is a significant gap that impedes evidence-based decision making. Similarly, only two of four OECD countries in the Asia-Pacific region have frameworks for regular monitoring. Countries could improve governance practices in this area by more regularly and consistently assessing the results of procurement processes based on up-to-date and reliable data. Relevant indicators to assess include measures of performance, effectiveness, duration of procurement processes and financial savings.
Evaluating the impact of procurement strategies helps ensure accountability in advancing government objectives. None of the four SEA countries currently measures the environmental benefits of infrastructure procurement, either during contract award or during construction (Figure 4.5). These practices are also underdeveloped among OECD countries, with only 12 of 27 (44%) measuring environmental impacts at the award stage, and only 6 of 27 measuring at construction stage. Countries often do not have sufficient data to fully analyse the environmental and other impacts of goods and services they procure. Relevant practices that governments may consider implementing include placing reporting obligations on suppliers and using appropriate impact assessment methodologies to measure the effectiveness of procurement in achieving environmental and other objectives.
