Opinion | Have the government adopt a more local and protectionist approach to public procurement

The European Commission is working on a revision of the public procurement directives. Proposals for the changes are expected from Brussels by late June 2026. The current rules, which Dutch public authorities must follow when procuring services, supplies, and works on the market, date from 2014. Willem Janssen, professor by special appointment of Public Procurement Law at the University of Groningen and an assistant professor at Utrecht University, is calling for a number of radical changes to enable public authorities to procure goods and services in a more sustainable and strategic manner. Rules are useful, but are they still serving the right purpose? According to Janssen, the rules fall short in some areas, while being far too rigid in others.

_{Written down by Marrit Wouda, Corporate Communication UG}

The non-binding nature of social objectives

‘Since the 1970s, we have had rules governing public procurement in the Netherlands and across Europe. This is because it involves public authorities spending public money. It’s not a bad idea to have requirements for how it is to be done. The basic principle is that contracts should be awarded fairly and transparently. For a long time, however, the industry viewed public procurement as a way of sourcing supplies cheaply. We have now realized that buying cheap often ends up costing more, and that procurement policies can also serve other interests.

For example, if we wanted to widen the A2 motorway, we could source recycled materials or employ long-term unemployed people to help them reintegrate into the labour market. That way, you could kill two birds with one stone. In addition to serving the primary purpose (widening the A2), the procurement would thus serve a secondary, social purpose. When the 2014 rules were drawn up, they expanded the scope for greener and more socially responsible procurement. But guess what? This opportunity is used far too rarely, as the rules are voluntary but not mandatory’.

Rigid rules

‘There can be freedom in one area, but at the same time, the procurement rules can be very rigid. Although the framework was designed to promote equality, the result has been a very rigid approach to organizing the competitive process. This means that we are wasting public money. For example, consider correcting errors in the registration process: we should be more flexible in that regard. It is also common practice to put the contract out to tender again every four years. I think that we’d benefit much more from a long-term partnership, as that’s the way to achieve the innovations we’re looking for.

Another example is that it makes it impossible to source supplies locally. To promote a single market, the idea is that it should be possible to bid for a contract from Germany, and vice versa. To say that we’d like to put contracts out to tender locally would be tantamount to discriminating against other Dutch parties, as well as those in Germany. And that’s not allowed, even though it could serve the sustainability of the local economy. The rules are strict, and that misses the point’.

Independent and sustainable

‘There should also be a greater scope for pursuing a strategic trade policy. In other words, we source this from across Europe. As the global landscape changes, we are increasingly being forced to consider whether we still want to rely on foreign companies for essential public services. Protectionism is no longer a dirty word. What worries me, however, is that the strategic focus on trade has a tendency to sideline the concept of sustainable procurement.

The Industry Accelerator Act, a recent legislative proposal from the European Commission, is a good example of how it should be done. This proposal combines climate requirements with strategic autonomy requirements for procurement. If the government wants to purchase aluminium, it should thus come from Europe, but it should also meet certain sustainability requirements. It should be both independent and sustainable – that’s exactly the course we need to steer’.

More rules, less rigid

‘How can we resolve that? The answer is now quite simple: more rules, but less rigid. For years, there have been calls for greater market forces and a broader scope. Governments were saying, “Give us a free hand, and we’ll make our procurement more environmentally friendly and socially responsible”. Nevertheless, green and socially responsible practices have still not become the norm. So, because we’ve already tried one regulatory approach (letting things run their course), we can now afford to be a bit more forceful. By raising the minimum standards, public authorities can start to pursue a more ambitious procurement policy. Standards remove ambiguity, and that’s very useful: think of it like a child who sometimes just needs things to be clear. Although it can obviously seem daunting to have more rules, the review of the procurement rules reveals that even market parties feel that public authorities are not setting ambitious enough requirements in the area of sustainability, and that they could certainly be a bit more ambitious’.

More information

• More opinion pieces
• Willem Janssen