10 September 2020

Promoting gender equality and social inclusion through public procurement

By Iain Boyd, Sabrina Martin, Connie McKimm and Scarlet George

GESI Workshop

 

Oxford Insights have been working with the UK Government Digital Service (GDS) Global Digital Marketplace Programme and the Prosperity Fund Global Anti-Corruption programme, led by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), on public procurement reform.

The GDS Global Digital Marketplace Programme is helping to reform public procurement. Globally, government spending is colossal, approximately one-fifth of world GDP amounting to almost $13 trillion. These enormous sums of money drive economies through investment in every industry, from Artificial Intelligence to Zoology, including spend on digital and technology.

Public money builds infrastructure and stimulates markets through jobs and investment in research and development, boosting innovation. This money flows through the community and it is why public procurement is so important. ‘How’, ‘what’ and ‘why’ governments buy from suppliers impacts the quality of public services, national infrastructures and social cohesion.

The UK’s GDS has created a programme specifically focused on helping countries buy better information and communications technology (ICT). Through the Global Digital Marketplace Programme, GDS recognised the importance of examining how procurement can affect gender equality and social inclusion (GESI), including how government buyers can mainstream GESI throughout their practices.

“Gender equality and social inclusion goes to the very heart of what I call ‘social purpose digital commissioning, which can be a catalyst for achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Digital government transformation – of which internet-era approaches to public procurement of ICTs is critical – is a cross-cutting and enabling element of inclusive, equitable, resilient and sustainable economic reform.”

Warren Smith, GDS Global Digital Marketplace Programme Director

GDS commissioned a team from Oxford Insights to conduct user research into best practices and to make recommendations on how to be more inclusive throughout the procurement lifecycle. In our Global Report, we make 3 key recommendations for procurement reform:

  • define the terms ‘gender equality and social inclusion’ so that all parties are clear about what these terms mean and to which people they refer

  • use the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals to promote gender equality and social inclusion in ICT Procurement

  • require buyers to engage with women-owned and minority-owned businesses throughout the procurement lifecycle to maximise inclusion of marginalised groups

While conducting the research we found that neither GESI nor GESI-responsive ICT procurement had been clearly defined. We felt it was important to establish a definition to ensure all users, from procurement officials to citizens, could easily understand what we meant. We tested this with interviewees, adding to it as we were provided feedback.

We defined the terms like this:

  • gender equality is about transforming the distribution of opportunities, choices and resources available to women so that they have equal power to shape their lives and participate in the process
  • social inclusion refers to the process of improving the conditions of disadvantaged individuals and groups – such as those living with disabilities, migrants, indigenous peoples or other minorities

GESI policies and practices need to be implemented throughout the ICT procurement lifecycle, so that buyers and suppliers are actively incorporating GESI in decision-making. Examples of good GESI practice would be to:

  • examine a contractor’s supply chain and ownership structure
  • review existing processes to encourage tenders from a diverse range of companies
  • gather and report diversity data
  • ensure diversity within procurement teams on the buyers’ side
  • use quotas to enable women and minority-owned businesses to more easily win tenders
  • require bidders to demonstrate a commitment to GESI principles within their own organisations and supply chains
  • reduce internal inequalities through greater partnerships with service teams

Employing good practice in procurement should also lead to buying digital and technology products which adhere to GESI standards. These products or services should be accessible to all. Examples of what this would look like in practice include ensuring computers and software meet all accessibility requirements for a variety of users. Similarly, government authorities should consider the accessibility needs of all users when designing public services including those with physical or mental disabilities.

Our research shows that GESI principles are important to ICT procurement as there is strong evidence that better representation of women, ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups throughout the procurement process results in redistribution of power and financial resources to historically disadvantaged communities.

Inclusive procurement brings concrete economic and social benefits for the government, both nationally and at a local level. It provides investment in communities, supports jobs, reduces un- and under-employment and is a key factor for economic growth. As well as fostering innovation and competition, inclusive procurement also gives governments access to a wider choice of goods and services and shorter, more flexible contracts.ey findings

GESI values should be integral to all digital and technology procurement 

Our research and analysis reveals that GESI principles should be mainstreamed at all stages in the procurement lifecycle. All too often they are an afterthought or not considered at all. To open up public procurement opportunities to a diverse supply chain, particularly locally owned businesses and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), GESI should be a guiding principle of good, inclusive procurement practice.

This includes engaging with suppliers from diverse communities to support their participation in public tendering. The GDS Global Digital Marketplace Programme will work with stakeholders to ensure gender equality and social inclusion is not just ‘nice-to-have’, but an integral feature of digital and technology procurement.

GESI mainstreaming should be intersectional

GESI mainstreaming requires paying attention to the ways in which intersecting structures of inequality can be replicated and reinforced through ICT procurement. The GDS Global Digital Marketplace Programme’s understanding of GESI principles in ICT procurement pays attention to gender as well as disability, race and class.

Attention to intersecting areas of difference within holistic procurement models can ensure that GESI goals are mainstreamed and consistently at the forefront throughout the public spending lifecycle; from digital and technology investment planning and appraisal, through to procurement and contracting, and during service delivery and implementation.

Streamline definitions and use of terms ‘gender equality’ and ‘social inclusion’

One significant way that the GDS Global Digital Marketplace Programme seeks to align all of its work with GESI principles is through concrete and consistent use of the terms ‘gender equality’ and ‘social inclusion’.

Research suggests that a vast array of stakeholders, including government buyers and civil society suppliers, were uncomfortable and unfamiliar with GESI language. GDS will use a simple and accessible definition of GESI when talking to stakeholders, to ensure clarity between different stakeholders and promote awareness of GESI issues. Our soon to be published Global Report contains more discussion on definitions of gender and identity.

Watch out for the risks posed by COVID-19

The ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis may prevent or even reverse progress towards gender equality and social inclusion within digital procurement. Governments around the world have shifted to emergency buying, rather than taking a strategic procurement approach. Emergency buying is likely to lead to governments paying less attention to the perceived ‘nice-to-haves’, such as gender equality and social inclusion in the procurement process.

The pandemic should be seen as an opportunity to reform, a “portal” through which governments can examine the flaws in their public procurement processes and imagine ways to bring about much-needed change. Sustainable Development Goal 12 explicitly advocates sustainable procurement reform as a means to advocate social and economic development. By embedding GESI principles throughout the procurement process, governments can prevent further exclusion of marginalised suppliers, and actively promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.

Use the GESI MEAL Indicator Framework

As part of its work that’s supported by the United Nations International Telecommunication Union ‘United for Smart Sustainable Cities‘ (U4SSC) initiative, the GDS Global Digital Marketplace Programme team is developing a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for internet-era approaches to public procurement of ICTs. The GESI MEAL Indicator Framework that we’ve developed forms part of this broader set of KPIs, and GDS will be talking more about that soon.

We are really only at the beginning of making public procurement more inclusive. As leaders of market reform, governments can be a catalyst for driving innovation, competition and redistribution of wealth to marginalised communities. The COVID-19 pandemic represents an opportunity to buy smarter, not default to emergency buying practices. We need public authorities to review existing practices, capture and measure procurement data and commit to inclusive reform. There is clearly still a lot of work to do and our research shows the huge social and economic benefits that GESI procurement offers across all communities.

For more in-depth research and recommendations, look out for our forthcoming Global Report on GESI in ICT Public Procurement.

Insights

More insights

21 April 2017

Why Government is ready for AI

12 July 2017

Five levels of AI in public service

26 July 2017

Making it personal: civil service and morality

10 August 2017

AI: Is a robot assistant going to steal your job?

19 September 2017

AI and legitimacy: government in the age of the machine

06 October 2017

More Than The Trees Are Worth? Intangibles, Decision-Making, and the Meares Island Logging Conflict

16 October 2017

The UK Government’s AI review: what’s missing?

23 October 2017

Why unconference? #Reimagine2017

03 November 2017

AI: the ultimate intern

09 November 2017

Motherboard knows best?

23 November 2017

Beyond driverless cars: our take on the UK’s Autumn Budget 2017

05 December 2017

Why Black people don’t start businesses (and how more inclusive innovation could make a difference)

06 December 2017

“The things that make me interesting cannot be digitised”: leadership lessons from the Drucker Forum

23 January 2018

Want to get serious about artificial intelligence? You’ll need an AI strategy

15 February 2018

Economic disruption and runaway AI: what can governments do?

26 April 2018

Ranking governments on AI – it’s time to act

08 May 2018

AI in the UK: are we ‘ready, willing and able’?

24 May 2018

Mexico leads Latin America as one of the first ten countries in the world to launch an artificial intelligence strategy

05 July 2018

Beyond borders: talking at TEDxLondon

13 July 2018

Is the UK ready, willing and able for AI? The Government responds to the Lords’ report

17 July 2018

Suspending or shaping the AI policy frontier: has Germany become part of the AI strategy fallacy?

27 July 2018

From open data to artificial intelligence: the next frontier in anti-corruption

01 August 2018

Why every city needs to take action on AI

09 August 2018

When good intentions go bad: the role of technology in terrorist content online

26 September 2018

Actions speak louder than words: the role of technology in combating terrorist content online

08 February 2019

More than STEM: how teaching human specialties will help prepare kids for AI

02 May 2019

Should we be scared of artificial intelligence?

04 June 2019

Ethics and AI: a crash course

25 July 2019

Dear Boris

01 August 2019

AI: more than human?

06 August 2019

Towards Synthetic Reality: When DeepFakes meet AR/VR

19 September 2019

Predictive Analytics, Public Services and Poverty

10 January 2020

To tackle regional inequality, AI strategies need to go local

20 April 2020

Workshops in an age of COVID and lockdown

10 September 2020

Will automation accelerate what coronavirus started?

21 September 2020

The Social Dilemma: A failed attempt to land a punch on Big Tech

20 October 2020

Data and Power: AI and Development in the Global South

23 December 2020

The ‘Creepiness Test’: When should we worry that AI is making decisions for us?

13 June 2022

Data promises to support climate action. Is it a double-edged sword?

30 September 2022

Towards a human-centred vision for public services: Human-Centred Public Services Index

06 October 2022

Why You Should Know and Care About Algorithmic Transparency

26 October 2022

Harnessing data for the public good: What can governments do?

09 December 2022

Behind the scenes of the Government AI Readiness Index

06 February 2023

Reflections on the Intel® AI for Youth Program

01 May 2023

Canada’s AI Policy: Leading the way in ethics, innovation, and talent

15 May 2023

Day in the life series: Giulia, Consultant

15 May 2023

Day in the life series: Emma, Consultant

17 May 2023

Day in the life series: Kirsty, Head of Programmes

18 May 2023

Day in the life series: Sully, Partnerships Associate/Consultant

19 May 2023

LLMs in Government: Brainstorming Applications

23 May 2023

Bahrain: Becoming a regional R&D Hub

30 May 2023

Driving AI adoption in the public sector: Uruguay’s efforts on capacity-building, trust, and AI ethics

07 June 2023

Jordan’s AI policy journey: Bridging vision and implementation

12 June 2023

Response to the UK’s Global Summit on AI Safety

20 June 2023

 Unlocking the economic potential of AI: Tajikistan’s plans to become more AI-ready

11 July 2023

Government transparency and anti-corruption standards: Reflections from the EITI Global Conference in Dakar, Senegal

31 August 2023

What is quantum technology and why should policymakers care about it?

21 September 2023

Practical tools for designers in government looking to avoid ethical AI nightmares

23 October 2023

Collective Intelligence: exploring ‘wicked problems’ in National Security

23 October 2023

Exploring the concepts of digital twin, digital shadow, and digital model

30 October 2023

How to hire privileged white men

09 November 2023

Inclusive consensus building: Reflections from day 4 of AI Fringe

13 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Can AI help us improve our home’s energy efficiency?

14 November 2023

Navigating the AI summit boom: Initial reflections

20 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Improving home energy efficiency by retrofitting

24 November 2023

Will AI kill us all?

27 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Preventing and predicting wildfires 

28 November 2023

Service Design in Government 2023: conference reflections

04 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: Using artificial and indigenous Intelligence to fight climate change

06 December 2023

Release: 2023 Government AI Readiness Index reveals which governments are most prepared to use AI

11 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: AI for flood adaptation plans and disaster relief

18 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: Managing floods using AI Early Warning Systems

28 May 2024

Strengthening AI Governance in Chile: GobLab UAI and the Importance of Collaboration

05 June 2024

Towards a Digital Society: Trinidad and Tobago’s AI Ambitions

17 June 2024

General election 2024 manifestos: the AI, data and digital TLDR

26 June 2024

Building Egypt’s AI Future: Capacity-Building, Compute Infrastructure, and Domestic LLMs

16 July 2024

Beyond the hype: thoughts on digital, data, and AI and the first 100 days