72
J. H. das Pinto and M. M. C. Maceno
when appropriate, and these items can address environmental criteria (for example,
energy performance, water performance, reused/recycled materials, presence of nonhazardous materials, among others), social criteria (for example, employee training,
work practices, among others), and economic criteria (for example, average costs,
employee expenses, product offerings by local companies, among others) (GRI 2015;
A3P 2009).
Despite the suggestions made to improve the Term of reference, it is understood that leaving the responsibility to include sustainability only for the demandant
can weaken the process in relation to this aspect. For example, Hegenberg (2013)
conducted a survey at 37 Federal Universities in Brazil and demonstrated that on
average 70% of the professionals at the demandant units were unable to specify
products with a sustainable character. Therefore, it was realized the importance of
human resources being developed, trained (Delmonico et al. 2018), and supported
in the entire process—from planning to the operational phase.
In this sense, in addition to the documents change, the second suggestion for
improvement refers to the inclusion of sustainability analysis by the PHEI procurement department. This analysis would be complementary to that made by the demandant, seeking to improve the selection of products that fulfill the minimum technical requirements. However, it is important that PHEI provides conditions for the
continuous training of the employees of the procurement department in relation to
sustainability criteria.
The third suggestion for improvement would be to structure an audit process for
the procurement process, in order to analyze the efficiency of sustainable procurement
and consequently to provide an indication of improvements.
A final suggestion for improving the PHEI procurement process would be to
analyze the purchase databases, aiming to create purchase routines for items that have
already performed well in the sustainability criteria in past acquisitions. This would
help to reduce problems with the PHEI structure, as highlighted by Assandre (2015),
who mentioned that the main barrier pointed out by the demandants of Higher Education Institutions in the procurement processes was the limitation of the Institutions
in contingent and structure.
Finally, considering Fig. 2, contract management occurs after the approval of the
notice. Thus, the analysis carried out in this research ends in the publication of the
public notice, at which time all sustainable criteria must have already been met.
4 Conclusion
The research aimed to propose changes to the PHEI procurement process in order to
become a sustainable procurement process.
Thus, it was possible to suggest the creation of clearer criteria considering sustainable products, in order to be able to evaluate practices and improve them. The standard
ISO 20400:2015 was used to support suggestions for improvement.
J. H. das Pinto and M. M. C. Maceno
when appropriate, and these items can address environmental criteria (for example,
energy performance, water performance, reused/recycled materials, presence of nonhazardous materials, among others), social criteria (for example, employee training,
work practices, among others), and economic criteria (for example, average costs,
employee expenses, product offerings by local companies, among others) (GRI 2015;
A3P 2009).
Despite the suggestions made to improve the Term of reference, it is understood that leaving the responsibility to include sustainability only for the demandant
can weaken the process in relation to this aspect. For example, Hegenberg (2013)
conducted a survey at 37 Federal Universities in Brazil and demonstrated that on
average 70% of the professionals at the demandant units were unable to specify
products with a sustainable character. Therefore, it was realized the importance of
human resources being developed, trained (Delmonico et al. 2018), and supported
in the entire process—from planning to the operational phase.
In this sense, in addition to the documents change, the second suggestion for
improvement refers to the inclusion of sustainability analysis by the PHEI procurement department. This analysis would be complementary to that made by the demandant, seeking to improve the selection of products that fulfill the minimum technical requirements. However, it is important that PHEI provides conditions for the
continuous training of the employees of the procurement department in relation to
sustainability criteria.
The third suggestion for improvement would be to structure an audit process for
the procurement process, in order to analyze the efficiency of sustainable procurement
and consequently to provide an indication of improvements.
A final suggestion for improving the PHEI procurement process would be to
analyze the purchase databases, aiming to create purchase routines for items that have
already performed well in the sustainability criteria in past acquisitions. This would
help to reduce problems with the PHEI structure, as highlighted by Assandre (2015),
who mentioned that the main barrier pointed out by the demandants of Higher Education Institutions in the procurement processes was the limitation of the Institutions
in contingent and structure.
Finally, considering Fig. 2, contract management occurs after the approval of the
notice. Thus, the analysis carried out in this research ends in the publication of the
public notice, at which time all sustainable criteria must have already been met.
4 Conclusion
The research aimed to propose changes to the PHEI procurement process in order to
become a sustainable procurement process.
Thus, it was possible to suggest the creation of clearer criteria considering sustainable products, in order to be able to evaluate practices and improve them. The standard
ISO 20400:2015 was used to support suggestions for improvement.