The National Audit Office's report on environmental sustainability in public procurement
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers it strange to legislate on special follow-up of sustainability when authorities already have many important requirements 1 and that the government is already carrying out active work 1. M also argues that environmental aspects can conflict with social and economic aspects in procurement. S considers that the government's measures are on the right track but far from finished 2 and wants the Public Procurement Act to be clarified so that sustainability requirements are followed up 2. MP considers that the law must be updated so that low environmental impact becomes governing 3, that a goal of net-zero emissions by 2030 should be introduced 3 and that climate issues are systematically deprioritized 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! We will now debate the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's report on environmental sustainability in public procurement, in which some criticism is directed at procuring authorities.
As Chairman of the Riksdag's Council for the National Audit Office, I would first like to emphasize the importance of our parliamentary agency, the National Audit Office, which performs a very important task in auditing both annual reports and the efficiency of our agencies.
For those following this debate, it may be of interest that I also explain a little bit about how the Riksdag usually handles these audits.
The customary handling of the National Audit Office's reports is that the government, in a communication, provides its view on the National Audit Office's statements and recommendations. Then, in this communication, one accounts for what one intends to do in the question at hand. Then this is sent over to the Riksdag, and then we take a position in the appropriate committees depending on what the questions concern regarding the government's communication. And it is therefore this that we do today.
The Swedish National Audit Office's report on environmental sustainability in public procurement
Regarding this specific issue of requirements for environmental sustainability in procurement, the Riksdag has previously stated that the state's agencies should set an example. It is therefore important to take the Swedish National Audit Office's observations and recommendations seriously. The government does so as well.
In the report from the Committee on Finance, several points are mentioned where the government is already carrying out work in line with the National Audit Office's recommendations.
Madam Speaker! In a motion, it is proposed that the Riksdag should urge the government to change the law so that it is prescribed that specifically sustainability requirements in procurement shall be followed up. In this context, it can be mentioned that authorities and other public actors, for example municipalities and regions, often have a significant number of important requirements within various areas as conditions in procurements. To legislate that just one of these parameters, namely sustainability, should be followed up in a special way would be a bit strange.
One must reasonably be able to assume that everyone who conducts procurements will subsequently follow up on all the requirements and conditions that are part of a concluded agreement. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, as the Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) notes. But in that case, the question should reasonably be asked to the one procuring: What is the point of conditions in a procurement if one then does not follow up on whether the conditions in a concluded agreement are actually complied with? It is welcome if the National Audit Office's report starts an important discussion on this. Here, we as politicians can contribute by raising the issue in various political contexts.
Unlike the member, the Committee on Finance does not, however, consider that the result of the National Audit Office's review justifies the Riksdag making announcements regarding changes to the regulatory framework itself. As stated in the communication, the government is therefore conducting active work regarding environmental considerations in procurement, and the committee assumes that the government will, if necessary, itself return with any proposals for necessary changes to the regulatory framework.
Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal to reject the motion and to table the government's communication.
Gunilla Carlsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Just as Member Ericson said, we are debating today the report in which the Committee on Finance discusses the government's communication regarding its assessments and measures in connection with the National Audit Office's report Environmental sustainability in public procurement - on the right track but far from finished. The National Audit Office has looked at how state agencies work with environmental considerations in procurement and what effects this achieves.
In the Swedish National Audit Office's report, it is highlighted that the state, regions, and municipalities paid over 913 billion kronor to private and public actors during 2020. Of these, the state authorities accounted for 226 billion kronor, and public procurement is an important part of many agencies' activities.
The National Audit Office finds that knowledge of how the government agencies work with environmental considerations is limited and that there are large differences between the agencies regarding methods of work. The National Audit Office makes, among other things, the assessment that the work with environmental considerations in procurement is in many ways not purposefully designed. They point out that there are deficiencies regarding governance and organization, competence and analytical basis, as well as follow-up.
One considers that the National Agency for Public Procurement provides well-designed support for taking environmental considerations into account in procurement. But the Swedish National Audit Office makes the assessment that there is a lack of follow-up that provides a true picture of what level of ambition the agencies have in their work with environmental considerations, Madam Speaker, and that the current follow-up of the state agencies' environmental considerations is not purposeful. One points out that many agencies do not have sufficiently well-organized procurement processes and sufficient environmental competence and that this means they do not live up to the level of ambition that we here in the Riksdag have expressed that we want them to achieve.
Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has recommended that the government take measures leading to an improvement in the reporting of environmental considerations in procurement within the environmental management system and that the National Agency for Public Procurement be tasked with regularly following up on the national procurement strategy. In the government's communication, which the Committee on Finance has processed, they highlight the measures they intend to take in view of the National Audit Office's report.
Among other things, it is said that a review of the national procurement strategy shall be initiated, and that via the regulatory letter, a mandate has been given to the National Agency for Public Procurement to update its existing tool for analyzing the environmental and climate impact of public procurement. This is good, but it is absolutely not sufficient.
Almost a year ago, on June 16, 2022, the then Social Democratic government decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding the obligation to consider certain societal interests in public procurement. It highlighted that an obligation should be introduced to consider the climate, the environment, people's health, animal welfare, as well as social and labor law aspects in public procurement.
This would mean that those who wish to do business with the public sector in the future can expect an increased demand for goods and services that meet high requirements regarding, among other things, climate and environment. The referral from the Council on Legislation is now, as stated, ready on the government's desk. It is only for the government to draft a bill and submit it to the Riksdag.
We Social Democrats want to see that public procurement is used as a powerful tool to promote environmental sustainability and steer towards a sustainable societal development. Together with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, we have a reservation in today's report as we believe that the government should return with proposals that involve clarifying the Public Procurement Act so that it appears that sustainability requirements shall be followed up. I move for approval of the reservation.
Janine Alm Ericson (MP)
Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we are quite conscious consumers. Many of us want to make climate-smart and ethical choices when we shop, for example, taking the train instead of flying and buying organic and locally produced goods. Surely our collective tax money should be used just as responsibly?
Today we are debating public procurement and whether the steering towards more consideration for sustainability is sufficiently good or not. The National Audit Office has done a good and solid job based on the question of whether the state's work to achieve environmentally sustainable procurement is effective. It has been concluded that it is not, and that measures must be taken.
It should be noted that the question, therefore, is not whether the state's work with sustainability actually leads to greater sustainability, but whether there are deficiencies in the management and governance to reach the goal.
The review shows that it is complicated to work with the sustainability requirements and that more support, help, and resources are needed. This is also seen by the National Agency for Public Procurement. The Swedish National Audit Office also notes that a comprehensive picture of the size of public procurement is lacking and that knowledge of how the government agencies work with environmental considerations in practice is also limited.
We cannot have it this way. More than 800 billion Swedish tax kronor are used every year for purchases for the common good - the public sector. Of course, those funds should be used in a way that allows us to reach other goals we have set for ourselves, such as national environmental goals, Agenda 2030, and the Paris Agreement on reduced emissions. It must become a self-evident matter that the collective power of these funds shall do good in the green transition, not contribute to polluting and emitting. But it is, therefore, far from a self-evident matter now.
A good deal can certainly be done with the recommendations that Riksrevisionen provides and what the Public Procurement Authority itself sees as needing to be done, as well as with the processes that are currently ongoing in the Government Offices. But – and it is a big but – as long as it is not an absolute requirement to choose the product or service that has the least negative impact on the environment and climate, it will continue to be difficult to achieve proper momentum and clarity in this work. It simply results in too many uncertainties and appeals. And despite the fact that there is now a good scope to take environmental considerations into account, it is far too often – almost always, I would dare say – the price that governs.
As we see it from the perspective of the Green Party, there is only one thing that would simplify and clarify sufficiently, and that is that the law on public procurement was updated so that all public procurement shall take into account environmental considerations and climate impact so that as low an impact as possible becomes governing.
We do not have time to wait. The climate impact of public procurement amounted to 23.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2019. These are very large emissions. They must be reduced.
We also know from the Public Procurement Authority that there is great potential in using public procurement as a tool to set requirements for circularity and climate considerations, so that we reach our environmental and climate goals and the goals in Agenda 2030. This is what we must grasp and utilize. The Corona pandemic and Putin's devastating war in Ukraine will make it significantly harder to achieve the goals than we thought a couple of years ago.
Now we must ensure that all the tools we have can be used. Then our common money must go towards making the world better - not towards leaving poverty and climate debt behind us.
Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a goal that the public sector shall lead in the transition and reach net-zero emissions by 2030. This is a simple and trackable goal, and it can most easily be achieved by changing the Public Procurement Act so that climate and environment are taken into account. It is no longer acceptable to make short-term procurements without consideration for sustainability. Miljöpartiet believes that those who want to do business with the state, municipalities, and regions in the future must sharpen their sustainability work and reduce their carbon footprint.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! As usual, the Green Party makes it very easy for themselves. Sustainability requirements shall be placed above everything else. I have two questions for Janine Alm Ericson.
In the report from the Swedish National Audit Office and the letter from the government, it appears that many different requirements are set during procurements and that these requirements can sometimes conflict with one another. For example, we know that climate requirements can conflict with environmental requirements. Climate measures can be taken that damage the environment and vice versa. We can have security policy requirements that conflict with environmental requirements. We can have a lot of different important social issues where things conflict with one another. When Miljöpartiet proposes that one requirement should be prioritized over all others, I wonder if they have even thought through what consequences this could have. That was my first question.
My second question is: Is there any limitation whatsoever for Miljöpartiet regarding how much it may cost for a requirement of sustainability to be prioritized over all other bids? Somewhere there is also an economic price tag on this. A sound assessment says that it is simply not realistic or reasonable if the authority – or, as Miljöpartiet puts it, the municipality – is to be able to make its finances balance. Is there at all any limitation for Miljöpartiet to take into account economic considerations of what is reasonable for the taxpayers and what a municipality or authority can afford?
Janine Alm Ericson (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank Jan Ericson for the question - obviously, he is not aware of what it actually is that Miljöpartiet is proposing.
We do not want to remove the entire basic idea of public procurement, namely that competing bids should be submitted so that it becomes as cheap as possible for the public sector. This is the foundation. We also see that it is largely the only thing that governs today, except possibly the security aspects – the defense has its veto in very many different parts when it comes to them.
In other respects, we see time and again - and receive testimony after testimony - that in the procuring authorities and at local, regional, and state levels, people would like to take more into account, but they cannot. In the National Audit Office's review, we see that they do not have sufficient competence and feel that they would need more, but above all, they only dare to go by price. It is this that we mean is wrong. That is why we must elevate the sustainability requirement to lie side by side. Then, of course, an assessment must always be made.
I am also very pleased that the member raised the question of costs. It becomes incredibly obvious that the Moderaterna have not understood anything about the effects of climate change or what will happen when we have depleted the entire planet. Then it becomes expensive. The costs that now come with the environmental destruction we see, with alternating drought and fires, are huge. Who is going to take them? Why should they not be included in these calculations?
It is typical that it is environment and climate that should not be given increased consideration when the Moderaterna bring this up. Everything else should apply much more, but it will not work in the long run. Then it will become expensive.
I would like to ask Jan Ericson how he views the increased costs that municipalities, regions, and the state will incur due to the climate changes that we are part of creating.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit strange that a member of the Green Party is standing in the speaker's chair and talking about how others' policies lead to societal problems. It was the Green Party's policy that led to Sweden being thrown into an energy crisis with skyrocketing energy costs while emissions increased. Not even a member of the Green Party can beat their chest and think that it was great.
There are many different aspects that must be included when making a procurement. As I mentioned, some of these aspects can actually conflict with one another. I took as an example that the environmental aspect and the climate aspect can conflict with each other. A very well-known example is the conflict between wind power and energy production – environmental aspects can be a problem, while at the same time wind power itself can provide climate benefits. That conflict exists, and there are many other such conflicts. There are social aspects that one also wants to bring into such agreements. It is not certain that these social aspects go hand in hand with the sustainability aspects otherwise. We also have, as we have said, the economic aspect.
It is very easy to scoff at the idea that one does not need to take this into account and that one should always make an assessment of what is right and wrong, but you in Miljöpartiet want to set certain requirements that are to be paramount over everything else. In that case, it is no longer possible to make such an assessment, because how is one supposed to judge this?
I think it is a very serious path that Miljöpartiet wants to take. That path also implies going much further than what is proposed in this motion, because here we are only talking about follow-up. I view with very great concern how Miljöpartiet views these issues, especially when it comes to how the municipalities are to afford this.
Janine Alm Ericson (MP)
Madam Speaker! Obviously, Jan Ericson does not answer how he wants to tackle the cost crisis that will hit us as climate change becomes increasingly worse. That is something the Moderaterna very rarely do.
What we see and criticize – and what is a major obstacle to being able to use money in public procurement in a way that leads to more sustainability – is not that there are different assessments to be made, but that there is only one assessment that applies now, and that is the price. No one dares to do anything else. No matter how environmentally harmful, emission-generating, and deadly for biodiversity it may be, it still comes down to the fact that the price is lower somewhere else and that one is not allowed to make that assessment. One is allowed to – there is such a space – but the knowledge is too poor.
I know, as Jan Ericson heard me say in my speech, if he only listened to what made him afraid, that things are happening in the Government Offices and that the National Agency for Public Procurement is working on this. But we do not believe that it is enough, because something that we believe must be systematically prioritized up is being systematically deprioritized. If we do not address climate change and the depletion of biodiversity, everything will become much more expensive.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.