Addressing economic efficiency–sustainability tensions in public procurement decision-making: unpacking the role of decision framings

Public procurement accounts for 13–20% of global GDP (World Bank, 2020) which, in turn, contributes to 19 and 38% of the global carbon and material footprint respectively (Ottelin et al., 2018). The public sector thus has a tremendous opportunity to address the global sustainability challenges that arise from procurement (Dimand et al., 2023). Accordingly, governments and scholars are increasingly focusing on sustainable public procurement (SPP) as a critical lever for advancing sustainability transitions (Amann et al., 2014). SPP embeds environmental and social criteria into procurement processes (Behravesh et al., 2022), positioning procurement as a key decision point through which sustainability can be operationalized into supply chain practices (Laosirihongthong et al., 2019).

This central role has been acknowledged by research at the intersection of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and SPP (Brammer and Walker, 2011; Walker and Brammer, 2009; Preuss, 2009). Given its scale and expenditure capacity, SPP enables public organizations to shape supplier behaviors by embedding sustainability criteria into tendering and contracting processes, thereby encouraging suppliers to adapt their practices and align with environmental and social standards (Amann et al., 2014). From this perspective, SPP is not only a mechanism for acquiring sustainable goods and services, but also a powerful tool through which public organizations can exert significant influence on markets and advance environmental and social objectives across supply networks through their purchasing decisions (Malacina et al., 2025).

Sustainable procurement decisions often generate tensions between sustainability ambitions and internal economic efficiency, as pursuing environmental and social value creation frequently conflicts with cost containment and budgetary discipline (Xiao et al., 2019; Meqdadi et al., 2020; Brammer and Walker, 2011). The need to reconcile these divergent demands renders procurement decision-making inherently complex (Wu and Pagell, 2011; Plaček et al., 2026).

This complexity intensifies in public procurement. Unlike private-sector settings, public procurement unfolds under dense regulation, strict accountability and spending constraints, heightened societal scrutiny and strong public demands for efficient resource allocation and collective value generation (Grandia and Meehan, 2017). These conditions limit discretionary space in SPP-related decisions and expose public organizations to elevated and heterogeneous expectations (Behravesh et al., 2022), thereby making it more difficult to reconcile competing objectives. In particular, public buyers operate within highly formalized and rule-bound procedures that constrain supplier selection and interaction (Harland et al., 2019). At the same time, they are exposed to multiple and often conflicting societal expectations, as procurement decisions must simultaneously respond to diverse public demands, including cost efficiency, environmental protection, and social outcomes (Wontner et al., 2020). Moreover, shifting electoral mandates and accountability to political principals may prioritize short-term, visible outcomes over longer-term sustainability goals, as political actors tend to favor initiatives that deliver tangible results within electoral time horizons (Gelderman et al., 2015).

These features suggest that sustainable procurement in the public sector is not simply a contextual variation of private-sector SSCM, but a qualitatively different decision-making setting, in which the economic efficiency–sustainability tension is more bounded, more exposed to scrutiny, and more structurally embedded in institutional arrangements.

SSCM research has shown that managers and organizations may respond differently to sustainability-related tensions (e.g. Xiao et al., 2019; Saunders et al., 2020; Wu and Pagell, 2011), emphasizing either economic or sustainability considerations, or seeking to accommodate both simultaneously. However, this body of work has predominantly focused on private-sector settings (Matos et al., 2020), paying limited attention to public procurement, which unfolds within an especially constrained and demanding decision-making context. While the SPP literature has documented the institutional conditions and implementation challenges associated with integrating sustainability into public purchasing (e.g. Brammer and Walker, 2011; Preuss and Walker, 2011; Wontner et al., 2020; Plaček et al., 2021), it remains unclear how public organizations interpret, evaluate, and navigate the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability within procurement decision-making. This gap matters because, due to the central role of SPP in influencing supplier sustainability behaviors and outcomes (Malacina et al., 2025), the way in which such tension is addressed through procurement decisions has direct consequences across supply chains (e.g. through the nature and stringency of sustainability requirements set for suppliers), making the organizational mechanisms underlying these decisions consequential beyond the boundary of the public buyer.

This study aims to fill this gap by answering the following research question: How do public organizations address the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability through procurement decision-making?

We assess this question through a multiple case study of 10 Italian public organizations analyzed abductively following the Gioia method (Gioia et al., 2013; Magnani and Gioia, 2023).

Our results show that public procurement unfolds within market, regulatory and social conditions that intensify the difficulty of concurrently pursuing internal economic efficiency and sustainability objectives. Within this context, public organizations adopt three SPP decision-making approaches – cost-driven, values-driven, and ambidextrous – that differ in how these objectives are prioritized. These approaches are underpinned by two decision framings, a rational framing, centered on economic and organizational considerations, and a public value–oriented framing, focused on long-term societal outcomes, which shape how procurement decisions are structured and justified.

These findings advance public procurement and SSCM literatures, as well as scholarship on ambidexterity in public organizations. First, we contribute to public procurement research by identifying three distinct SPP decision-making approaches through which public organizations respond to the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability. Second, we extend research on sustainability-related tensions in SSCM (Saunders et al., 2020; Wu and Pagell, 2011; Xiao et al., 2019), which has predominantly relied on the institutional logics lens (Schumm and Niehm, 2024; Razmdoost and Alinaghian, 2024), by introducing a decision framing perspective that uncovers decision framings as generative mechanisms that explain variation in responses at the decision-making level. By examining these mechanisms in the public sector procurement context, where the economic efficiency–sustainability tension is compounded by structural constraints, we further extend SSCM insights to settings in which sustainability-related tensions are less amenable to discretionary management. Third, we contribute to research on ambidexterity in public organizations (Cannaerts et al., 2020; Gieske et al., 2020) by showing that an ambidextrous decision-making approach emerges from the capability to hold together rational and public value–oriented decision framings.

In translating sustainability objectives into supply chain practice, procurement plays a central role (Miemczyk et al., 2012). Through procurement activities, organizations strategically define supplier selection criteria, tender requirements, technical specifications, and contractual conditions that shape how environmental and social considerations are incorporated into purchasing processes and supply relationships (Villena, 2019). By specifying sustainability-related award criteria or contractual clauses, buying organizations directly influence suppliers' practices along the supply chain (Wontner et al., 2020).

While these functions apply across both public and private sectors, much of the existing research on sustainable procurement focuses on private-sector supply chains, where procurement decisions are characterized by managerial discretion and relational contracting arrangements (Hinterhuber and Khan, 2025; Laosirihongthong et al., 2019; Miemczyk et al., 2012).

By contrast, public procurement operates under fundamentally different conditions. Procurement decisions are situated within dense regulatory frameworks, heightened accountability requirements, and explicit public mandates (Gelderman et al., 2015; Forster et al., 2025). Public buyers act as custodians of public resources and are therefore subject to strict rules aimed at ensuring transparency, integrity, competition, and equal treatment of suppliers (Walker and Brammer, 2009). From a bureaucratic discretion perspective, these constraints limit the scope of administrative action in supplier selection, contracting practices, and relational engagement, making public procurement a highly formalized and circumscribed decision setting compared to private sector (Harland et al., 2019). Forster et al. (2025) empirically substantiate this, showing that the legislative and regulatory pressures bearing on public organizations strongly constrain procurement decisions throughout the entire procurement lifecycle.

Also, public procurement decisions are subject to pervasive scrutiny, as the ultimate beneficiaries are citizens, who are both service users and taxpayers (Behravesh et al., 2022). From a public value perspective, public organizations are expected to allocate resources and make decisions that advance outcomes collectively regarded as valuable by society (Benington and Moore, 2010). However, citizens' expectations can vary widely and are often contradictory, ranging from preferences for cost-effectiveness, local development, minority advocacy, and emissions reduction (Grandia and Meehan, 2017).

Moreover, public procurement decisions take place within political–administrative structures where decision-makers, from a principal–agent perspective (Lane, 2006), are accountable to elected officials and, ultimately, to the electorate (Gelderman et al., 2015). As a result, priorities may shift following electoral cycles and changes in political leadership (Walker and Brammer, 2009). These dynamics may lead public actors to favor initiatives yielding visible, short-term results within electoral time horizons, potentially constraining the long-term ambition of sustainability-oriented procurement.

Finally, public procurement decisions are affected by market conditions within the boundaries set by regulatory and budget constraints. Implementing sustainability criteria requires public organizations to assess market availability and suppliers' sustainability attributes (Preuss, 2009); however, their ability to interact with suppliers is tightly regulated to ensure spending accountability and prevent corruption (Harland et al., 2019). In addition, monitoring sustainability requirements during contract execution entails significant demands in terms of time, cost, and expertise, which are usually scarce resources in public organizations (Wontner et al., 2020).

Taken together, SPP occurs in an especially constrained decision-making context, in which organizations operate with less discretion and greater exposure to heterogeneous societal expectations than their private-sector counterparts. Understanding how procurement decisions unfold under these conditions is therefore essential for explaining the unique challenges of achieving sustainability in public sector procurement.

Sustainable procurement decisions typically involve multiple, and often competing, objectives, as sustainability considerations must be weighed against established priorities such as cost efficiency (Busse, 2016; Plaček et al., 2026), quality requirements (Li, 2013), or operational flexibility (Fayezi et al., 2018). As a result, such decisions are frequently characterized by trade-offs and tensions, rendering the decision-making process inherently complex (Wu and Pagell, 2011; Xiao et al., 2019). This complexity is compounded by uncertainty and information challenges (Wu and Pagell, 2011). Sustainability attributes are often difficult to measure, compare, or verify across suppliers, and the effects of procurement decisions on environmental and social outcomes may only materialize over extended time horizons (Saunders et al., 2020). Accordingly, sustainable procurement has been conceptualized in SSCM research as a domain of complex decision-making, where competing objectives and evaluative ambiguity coexist (Fayezi et al., 2018; Xiao et al., 2019; Kenny et al., 2026).

Against this backdrop, research in sustainable operations and supply chain management has documented the presence of trade-offs and tensions in the pursuit of sustainability (Matos et al., 2020; Montabon et al., 2016), including conflicts between internal organizational objectives and broader sustainability outcomes (Meqdadi et al., 2020), between short-term operational priorities and longer-term sustainability considerations (Klassen and Hajmohammad, 2017; Esfahbodi et al., 2016), and between different stakeholder expectations (Vidal et al., 2023; Carter et al., 2020).

When sustainability-related tensions are confronted at the level of procurement decision-making, they often epitomize the conflict between economic performance and sustainability aims (Khan and Hinterhuber, 2024; Xiao et al., 2019; Meqdadi et al., 2020; Brammer and Walker, 2011). This conflict becomes particularly acute when procurement choices move beyond “low-hanging fruit” sustainability options (e.g. incremental reductions in energy use or waste) and involve more substantive forms of sustainability that require significant investments and organizational change (Wu and Pagell, 2011; Montabon et al., 2016). Moreover, while the economic implications of procurement decisions (e.g. purchasing costs, budget pressures) are borne directly by the focal organization and promptly reflected in performance metrics, the environmental and social benefits associated with more substantive sustainability initiatives often accrue beyond organizational boundaries and are only partially captured by firm-centric evaluative criteria (Meqdadi et al., 2020). These insights point to the tension between internal economic efficiency, which focuses on cost reduction and budgetary discipline (Xiao et al., 2019), and substantive sustainability as particularly central to procurement decision-making.

In the specific context of SPP, this tension may become especially pronounced. On the one hand, strict budgetary constraints, formal accountability requirements, and limited discretionary space intensify the emphasis on cost containment and budget control in procurement decision-making (Preuss, 2009; Brammer and Walker, 2011). On the other hand, public organizations are increasingly expected to leverage procurement to generate environmental and social value for the community (Grandia and Meehan, 2017). While scholars have acknowledged the centrality of the tension between economic and sustainability considerations in SPP (e.g. Wontner et al., 2020; Preuss and Walker, 2011; Plaček et al., 2021), the organizational responses to this tension within public procurement decision-making remain underexplored.

Extant research has emphasized that responses to sustainability-related tensions depend on how such tensions are interpreted within organizational decision-making processes (Montabon et al., 2016; Hahn et al., 2014; Glac, 2009). Research on managerial sensemaking highlights that sustainability issues are filtered through cognitive and evaluative frames that shape what decision-makers perceive as salient, legitimate, and actionable (Hahn et al., 2014; Xiao et al., 2019).

These frames can be understood as interpretive templates through which individuals select and organize information in complex decision situations (Walsh, 1995), guiding how they make sense of competing objectives and which courses of action are considered appropriate (Hahn et al., 2014). In this sense, such frames structure how economic and sustainability considerations are weighed, which criteria are mobilized to justify choices, and which consequences are foregrounded or downplayed in decision evaluation (Xiao et al., 2019; Alexander et al., 2014; Reuter et al., 2012; Glac, 2009).

SSCM research has frequently examined sustainability-related tensions through the lens of institutional logics, understood as “socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules” (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999: 804), showing how they contribute to defining which priorities are considered relevant within a given context (Schumm and Niehm, 2024; McLoughlin and Meehan, 2021). For example, Razmdoost and Alinaghian (2024) illustrate how buying firms adopting social procurement practices contend with competing market and social logics that configure the priorities organizations must navigate. Complementing this perspective, decision framings operate at a more situated and cognitive level, capturing how such priorities are interpreted and articulated within specific decision-making processes (Glac, 2009). Different framings may emphasize distinct evaluative orientations, privileging economically oriented criteria or broader value-based considerations (Keeney, 1996; Reuter et al., 2012; Alexander et al., 2014), thereby influencing how competing objectives are integrated in decision-making. Accordingly, similar sustainability-related tensions may give rise to heterogeneous organizational responses ranging from prioritizing economic issues to accommodating more ambitious sustainability goals or attempting to balance both simultaneously (Hahn et al., 2016). In the context of SSCM, Wu and Pagell (2011) show that organizations confronted with such tensions may rely on different “environmental postures”, leading decision processes to emphasize economic, environmental, or social considerations to different degrees, or to consider them jointly.

While prior research has deepened our understanding of how organizations in the private sector prioritize economic and sustainability objectives (Xiao et al., 2019; Wu and Pagell, 2011), less is known about how these dynamics unfold in public procurement decision-making contexts. In such settings, procurement decisions are embedded in accountability regimes, statutory mandates, and collective value expectations (Benington and Moore, 2010; Gelderman et al., 2015). As a result, the ways in which economic efficiency and sustainability ambitions are framed, legitimized, and operationalized in decision-making may differ from private-sector environments.

Despite growing interest in SPP (Malacina et al., 2025), we still lack an understanding of how public organizations address the tension between economic priorities and sustainability ambitions when making procurement decisions under conditions of constrained discretion and heightened societal expectations. Building on the concept of decision framing, we examine how procurement decisions are structured and justified through different evaluative orientations when organizations confront competing objectives.

To answer our research question, we conducted a qualitative analysis using a multiple case study design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) involving 10 public organizations. The case study methodology is considered particularly valuable for investigating complex, real-world phenomena that require further theoretical development (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007), such as organizational responses to sustainability-related tensions in public procurement decision-making (Walker et al., 2012).

This research adopted a purposive sampling approach to ensure the selection of participants' characteristics matched the study's aims (Eisenhardt, 1989). We collected information mainly from municipalities but also from two regional agencies providing services to citizens and businesses. We considered different types of public organizations to allow for theoretical replication across organizational settings (Yin, 2009). This allowed us to assess whether the observed results reflect general decision-making approaches in public procurement rather than being specific to the municipal context. Yet, municipalities remained the primary empirical focus because they directly manage a wide range of essential public services (e.g. local public transportation, waste management, school construction) and have a central role in implementing environmental policies at the local level, activities which largely materialize through procurement decisions (Harland et al., 2019).

The research context consists of Italian public organizations. This choice rested on three main considerations. First, since SPP policies vary considerably across countries (Brammer and Walker, 2011), focusing on a single country reduces potential bias related to geographic dislocation. Second, Italy has been a pioneer in SPP policies within the EU, introducing the “National Action Plan for Green Public Procurement” in 2008, which demonstrated an early commitment to integrating environmental criteria into procurement. Third, with the 2016 Public Procurement Code, Italy became the first European country to mandate Minimum Environmental Criteria (CAM) for specific public procurement categories (Testa et al., 2020).

Case selection was conducted in two phases. The first phase took place in 2021, stimulated by a research project on the internal dynamics of SPP, funded by SNA (the Italian National School of Public Administration). The second phase was conducted in 2024, as our analysis of phase one data indicated that theoretical saturation had not yet been achieved (Bowen, 2008). Because both phases fall within the same Italian regulatory framework governing SPP, and given the homogeneous perception of the external context emerging from the data, the time lag between data collection phases did not affect the consistency of the findings.

Given our research aim and to enhance comparability, we targeted public organizations with formally recognized commitments to sustainability initiatives (outside the specific domain of procurement). This selection criterion was not aimed at selecting “best-performing” organizations but rather at focusing on decision-making contexts in which sustainability was sufficiently institutionalized to generate potential tensions with economic efficiency considerations. Accordingly, we conducted a desk analysis to identify organizations recognized by the same third party for their sustainability initiatives. We identified and contacted 17 public organizations (10 in the first phase and 7 in the second) that, between 2020 and 2024, received an official recognition from Legambiente – the leading Italian environmental NGO – for their engagement in sustainability-related activities and projects (e.g. green mobility, renewable energy, waste management and circular economy, territorial protection, inclusivity and accessibility).

Eight organizations agreed to participate in the study (5 in the first phase and 3 in the second). During the second phase, we identified 2 additional municipalities through a snowballing technique applied to interviewees, drawing on insights from other researchers and existing contacts. Eligibility was cross-checked by reviewing recent public documents and procurement tenders. Although these two organizations had not formally received a recognition for their sustainability initiatives, they were included based on documented evidence of strategic sustainability objectives publicly reported in official planning documents. Overall, our final sample consists of 10 public organizations: 8 municipalities and 2 regional agencies (see Table 1).

We combined semi-structured interviews, field observations, and archival research to collect data and enable triangulation of our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009).

In-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted by two researchers using a semi-structured interview protocol (Eisenhardt, 1989). Each section of the protocol included core questions addressed to all respondents, alongside tailored questions for different organizational roles. For each organization, we contacted at least one political informant (e.g. mayor for municipalities; president for regional agencies), one managerial informant (e.g. head of procurement office), and one technical-administrative informant directly involved in the procurement (e.g. public works specialist). The combination of multiple respondent roles enabled us to capture how procurement decisions were justified and evaluated across the organization. In Org.#2 and Org.#10, political and managerial contacts were unavailable. However, since the interviewee in both was the head of the procurement office (i.e. the individual most directly involved in procurement), we included both organizations in the sample. Moreover, in these cases, interview data were complemented by a more extensive use of documentary evidence, including internal documents directly provided by interviewees (e.g. specific procurement tenders, programmatic documents, internal procurement guidelines, evaluation templates). In total, we performed 27 interviews with 36 individuals (see Table 1).

Field observations. Whenever possible, site visits accompanied interviews, allowing observation of on-site behaviors and practices and informal conversations with technical-administrative staff. Observations focused on how procurement-related activities were coordinated across departments, how monitoring and compliance requirements were managed in practice, and how resource constraints were experienced in daily work. These insights helped contextualize interview accounts. Overall, we collected 21 pages of notes over ∼11 h of observation.

Archival data. We gathered archival data from organizations' websites, publicly available technical documents (e.g. procurement notices), and online sources (e.g. newspaper articles, social media posts, databases and national repositories). In several instances, participating organizations also shared additional internal documents (e.g. specific tenders, project reports, and other technical, strategic, and programmatic documents). Archival data were consulted both before interviews – to obtain an initial overview of each case – and after interviews – to triangulate statements and refine case understanding. Overall, we collected 55 documents corresponding to 571 pages of archival data.

Our analysis followed an abductive approach to identify the most plausible explanation for the emerging patterns in the data (Mantere and Ketokivi, 2013), iteratively connecting empirical evidence with theory (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). To manage the qualitative material we applied the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013), using axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) to move from “informant-based” first-order concepts to “researcher-based” second-order themes and aggregate dimensions.

The unit of analysis is the organizational decision-making approach to SPP. Accordingly, each case was examined at the organizational level, focusing on how economic efficiency and sustainability considerations are addressed overall in procurement decisions.

Case construction was based on the integration and triangulation of the different data sources. Interviews provided insights into how decision-makers framed and justified sustainable procurement choices, archival data traced formal procurement practices and organizational arrangements, and field observations offered a contextual understanding of how procurement activities were organized and enacted.

The abductive data analysis proceeded in five stages. First, we articulated the theoretical lens guiding our inquiry. Given the research question, we drew on the literature on sustainability-related tensions and decision-making in procurement and SSCM (e.g. Fayezi et al., 2018; Wu and Pagell, 2011; Xiao et al., 2019; Montabon et al., 2016; Alexander et al., 2014; Keeney, 1996). More specifically, we drew on the notion of procurement sustainability tensions (Fayezi et al., 2018), on the ways in which organizations deal with trade-offs in sustainable supply chain decision-making (e.g. the “environmental postures” identified by Wu and Pagell, 2011), and on established typologies of decision-making, such as alternative-focused (emphasizing the comparison of options based on observable performance outcomes) and value-focused decision-making (emphasizing the identification of values to guide choices) (Keeney, 1996). These concepts sensitized our analysis to how competing economic and sustainability objectives might be interpreted and operationalized in procurement decision-making and informed our initial analytical focus.

Second, for each organization, we read primary and secondary data to build a complete case picture. Immersion in the empirical material allowed us to situate our theoretical lens within the specific conditions characterizing public procurement and develop an initial understanding of how SPP choices were enacted in each case. Table 2 presents the within-case profiling of each organization.

Third, we conducted an in-depth examination of the data to identify recurring patterns and extract first-order concepts. In doing so, we focused on how public procurement contextual conditions were described, how economic and sustainability considerations were articulated in procurement decisions, and which evaluative criteria were invoked in justifying choices. Through within- and cross-case comparisons, differences began to emerge in the way public organizations addressed internal economic efficiency and sustainability objectives through procurement decision-making and recurring patterns were observed in how procurement choices were justified and legitimized. These patterns pointed to underlying differences in how the decision space was constructed, prompting us to focus more closely on how decisions were framed.

Fourth, we returned to the literature on tensions and decision-making in SSCM (Wu and Pagell, 2011; Montabon et al., 2016; Alexander et al., 2014; Keeney, 1996) and engaged with the concept of decision framing (e.g. Hahn et al., 2014; Glac, 2009) to further interpret and theoretically refine the empirical patterns identified in the previous stage. This concept proved particularly appropriate, as the observed variation lay in how procurement decisions were structured and made sense of in relation to economic efficiency and sustainability considerations. The iterative movement between empirical insights and theoretical constructs sharpened our analytical lens, enabling the progression from first-order concepts into more abstract second-order themes and aggregate dimensions.

Fifth, we revised and consolidated the emerging conceptual model in light of the refined analytical lens and a systematic re-examination of all cases. This final iteration enabled us to stabilize the configurational model of SPP decision-making approaches that capture how public organizations address the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability objectives. It also clarified the underlying mechanisms shaping these approaches.

One researcher was responsible for identifying relevant codes, which were discussed with two other researchers. We relied on a negotiated agreement procedure (Yin, 2015), whereby differing interpretations were debated and reconciled through 10 dedicated meetings. We also conducted a peer debriefing with an external scholar with expertise in SPP and SSCM (Spall, 1998), where we presented the emerging data structure and incorporated critical feedback to refine and validate our analytical scheme. The data structure and resulting model underwent 11 iterative revisions to ensure conceptual coherence and alignment with the empirical material.

Throughout the analysis, we monitored the emergence of new themes and categories. Following the principle of theoretical saturation (Bowen, 2008), data collection and analysis proceeded until additional data no longer generated substantively new themes or altered the emerging analytical structure. Preliminary categories began to stabilize after analyzing the first five organizations, while the inclusion of additional cases (organizations 6–10) allowed us to sharpen and consolidate them. Analysis of the final cases yielded no new categories, indicating that theoretical saturation had been reached.

The data revealed three main public procurement contextual conditions related to the market, regulatory, and social context, which intensify decision-making complexity in SPP, thereby increasing the challenge of simultaneously pursuing internal economic efficiency and ambitious sustainability objectives through SPP decision-making (Wu and Pagell, 2011; Xiao et al., 2019). Organizations showed a homogeneous depiction of these contextual conditions (see Table 3).

Regarding the market, respondents reported that suppliers frequently fail to meet sustainability requirements, forcing public organizations to adapt to limited offerings and sometimes accept suboptimal solutions: “…they only had one model, so I had to adapt to that model…” (Bursar, Org.#5). Moreover, some suppliers resist adopting sustainability practices, driven by cost-saving and profit-oriented views: “…there is a tendency to do as it used to be done, always trying to save money…” (Head of procurement office, Org.#2). Others misrepresent sustainability commitments declared during tenders, exploiting the limited oversight capacity of public organizations. These market conditions narrow the options available to public buyers, increasing the likelihood that more demanding sustainability requirements entail lower competition, higher costs and greater uncertainty in supplier evaluation (Grandia and Meehan, 2017).

The regulatory context also plays a central role in SPP. In Italy, public procurement regulations are widely perceived as rigid and burdensome, due to their volume and frequent changes: “the constant changing of regulations has definitely led to hassle and confusion” (Public works specialist, Org.#5). They are also considered ambiguous and incomplete, leaving several product and service categories uncovered. These regulatory features tend to constrain strategic discretion in procurement decisions and to reinforce a cautious, risk-averse stance, discouraging the proactive introduction of ambitious sustainability requirements in tenders (Harland et al., 2019).

Finally, the social context adds further complexity in SPP decision-making. Citizens' scrutiny often pushes administrators to favor visible, quick fixes over initiatives with deeper sustainability benefits: “…if you post a picture of an abandoned flowerbed, there is immediately a barrage of criticism…” (Mayor, Org.#4). Moreover, despite growing environmental awareness, sustainability initiatives often trigger conflict among groups with divergent interests, complicating decision-making: “…when I make a bicycle path, I have equal citizens happy and unhappy, because I took away five parking spaces” (Councillor, Org.#7). Such conflicts thus make procurement decisions more contentious, raising the political challenge of pursuing sustainability-oriented choices, particularly when these involve higher upfront economic costs (Wontner et al., 2020).

Taken together, market, regulatory, and social conditions intensify the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability ambitions. Yet, despite a shared external setting, organizations vary in how they interpret and respond to this tension. The following sections examine how such variation unfolds in practice.

The within-case analysis revealed that organizations adopted three distinct SPP decision-making approaches which differed in how economic efficiency and sustainability considerations were prioritized in procurement choices, thereby reflecting alternative ways of addressing the tension between the two (see Table 4).

A cost-driven approach entails applying SPP when it does not compromise internal economic performance. This means that economic considerations are preponderant in procurement decision-making, while sustainability remains secondary and conditional. This approach emerges clearly in Org.#2 and Org.#7. Both organizations only make sustainable purchases that fall within narrow budget limits, settling for suboptimal environmental or social outcomes: “When deciding whether to buy or not, I prioritize staying within budget over selecting the most sustainable option.” (Budgeting and accounting specialist, Org.#7). Likewise, in Org.#2's tender specifications, award criteria are predominantly cost-based, rendering sustainability engagement in procurement structurally subordinate to internal economic priorities.

Complementarily, sustainability considerations in procurement decisions are also primarily aimed at achieving cost savings: “…we look for those more compatible solutions where there is a significant cost savings […].” (Head of environmental department, Org.#7). In the same vein, in Org.#2's performance reports, sustainable purchases are highlighted mainly in terms of their contribution to expenditure reduction. This reflects an instrumental rationale focused on win-win solutions (Xiao et al., 2019).

A values-driven approach involves SPP being applied proactively and thoroughly, prioritizing the creation of environmental and/or social value, even at the expense of internal economic efficiency. Accordingly, the organizational focus on sustainability in procurement decisions is high, while the focus on internal economic efficiency is low. This approach is evident in Org.#1, #6, #9, and #10. Such organizations tend to be very thorough in the verification of the sustainability characteristics of the products and services to be purchased, delving into the details and taking nothing for granted.

This behavior is also reflected in a proactive search for suppliers capable of meeting high sustainability requirements: “…through preliminary market consultations, we try to identify suppliers that offer more advanced sustainable solutions…” (Infrastructure and public works technical specialist, Org.#6). Archival data from Org.#9 confirms this practice, as procurement resolutions include explicit verifications of suppliers' capacity to meet the organization's sustainability goals. Organizations adopting a values-driven approach also go beyond legal compliance, setting sustainability criteria above regulatory thresholds (e.g. Org.#1 and #6) and for product/service categories not formally covered by mandatory requirements (e.g. Org#9 and #10).

More sustainable choices often entail additional economic costs (Wu and Pagell, 2011). However, organizations characterized by a values-driven approach demonstrate willingness to sacrifice internal economic performance to achieve greater sustainability benefits: “…it would have been much cheaper to stick to the basic requirements for the sidewalk paving, but we decided that the environmental impact mattered more, even if it clearly meant higher costs” (Environmental management and procurement technical specialist, Org.#1). As a result, when economic and sustainability objectives are perceived as conflicting, priority is given to the environmental and social aspects over cost.

The third approach identified is ambidextrous, in which SPP is enacted as a deliberate attempt to simultaneously pursue internal economic efficiency and substantive sustainability objectives. This approach is observed in Org.#3, #5, and #8. When faced with conflicting issues, these organizations do not pursue one objective over the other or limit sustainable purchases to only those that allow for short-term economic returns. Rather, they accept and navigate the tension through procurement decisions. In this regard, supplier selection strives to combine sustainability and cost considerations, as illustrated by the Head of the procurement office from Org.#8: “We obviously have to respect budget constraints, but at the same time the sustainability requirements we set are not optional. Carrying out a careful comparison of suppliers is essential precisely because both aspects must be satisfied”. Economic and sustainability priorities are therefore treated as equally salient in procurement decisions.

Organizations adopting an ambidextrous approach also leverage emerging opportunities to meet multiple needs simultaneously. Rather than regarding budget constraints as fixed limits, they actively seek funding opportunities to expand the scope of procurement interventions. For example, Org.#8 accessed European funds to implement an urban redevelopment project combining environmental and social aims (urban reforestation and universally accessible public recreational spaces) while remaining feasible under budget constraints.

Finally, in Org.#3 and Org.#8 in particular, procurement decisions rely on a broader evaluation across economic, environmental, and social factors over the product/service life cycle, as articulated by the Environmental and technical specialist from Org.#3: “We need to evaluate the whole package, so not just the environmental or economic aspect that we see written on the product, but in general the performance of the product and service throughout its life cycle”. This reflects the concept of “Value for Money Procurement” (Preuss, 2009), whereby overall value derives from the concurrent assessment of economic and sustainability criteria.

A comparative reading of the three approaches reveals systematic differences in how organizations prioritize and combine economic efficiency and sustainability considerations in procurement decisions.

Although all organizations operate under similar market, regulatory, and social constraints, they differ markedly in the emphasis attributed to economic performance and environmental/social value in procurement decisions (Preuss, 2009).

Across cases, some organizations subordinate sustainability to economic imperatives, others prioritize it even at the expense of economic performance, and still others place emphasis on both objectives, seeking to pursue them concurrently. These differences reflect alternative ways of addressing the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability in procurement decision-making (Xiao et al., 2019; Meqdadi et al., 2020; Montabon et al., 2016). The three approaches thus capture distinct, empirically observed responses to this tension.

The analysis also revealed a contrasting pattern in one organization (Org.#4), in which the economic efficiency–sustainability tension is not actively experienced in procurement decision-making. In this case, SPP is enacted passively, as a set of externally imposed requirements to be complied with, rather than as a domain of active decision-making. As noted by one respondent, “I don't see that there is any particular focus beyond regulatory compliance.” (Bursar, Org.#4). As a result, procurement decisions are not directed toward prioritizing or balancing economic efficiency and sustainability objectives, but instead follow a rule-based and non-deliberative pattern, in which choices are treated as routine applications of regulatory requirements. This suggests that, in the absence of a perceived tension, procurement does not become an arena for active decision evaluation.

Rather than representing an additional decision-making approach, this case highlights a boundary condition of our framework: the three observed approaches capture alternative ways in which organizations address the economic efficiency–sustainability tension when it is actively experienced in procurement decision-making. When this tension is not experienced, no distinct response emerges.

While this classification describes how SPP decision-making unfolds in relation to the tension, it does not explain why organizations operating under similar contextual conditions adopt different approaches. To account for this variation, we examined how procurement decisions were justified and evaluated across cases, revealing distinct decision framings that underpin and shape such variation.

Our analysis identified two recurrent ways in which procurement decisions are framed across organizations: a rational decision framing and a public value–oriented decision framing (Table 5). These framings embody distinct interpretations of the decision space, grounded in different underlying orientations that define how procurement decisions are evaluated (Hahn et al., 2014; Glac, 2009; Alexander et al., 2014; Keeney, 1996). Importantly, decision framings are not mutually exclusive. In some organizations (i.e. Org.#3, #5, and #8), elements of both framings coexisted, suggesting that procurement decisions may be shaped by multiple evaluative orientations operating simultaneously.

The rational decision framing conceives procurement decisions as guided by calculative rationality. In this sense, they are grounded in formal comparability, economic justifiability, and organizational feasibility. This framing is prominently evident in Org.#2, #3, #5, #7, and #8. Across such organizations, procurement choices are articulated in relation to available financial resources and organizational capacity and tied to internal budget accountability. As the head of the procurement office from Org.#2 noted: “the organization and the money are these, so procurement choices somehow depend on these factors.” Procurement decisions are thus framed within a space defined by budgetary and organizational constraints.

Consistently, organizations characterized by a rational decision framing structure procurement choices through cost-based comparisons and expect decisions to be supported by accurate financial data. This is evident, for example, in the bid evaluation minutes of Org.#5, #7, and #8, where comparative tables and detailed cost breakdowns accompany purchasing decisions. Economic data thus constitute a crucial basis for comparing procurement alternatives.

Procurement options are also assessed in light of their implications for internal organizational resources (e.g. competences, time, personnel) and monitoring feasibility. As the Environmental and technical specialist from Org.#3 explained, purchasing choices need to be evaluated “in terms of allocation of competences and people”, while the Councillor from Org.#7 emphasized that “one element we look at is whether the requirement can be effectively monitored during contract execution.” This indicates that decision evaluation is centered on the internal organizational implications.

The public value–oriented decision framing configures procurement decisions as oriented toward collective outcomes beyond the organization's boundaries, extending decision evaluation to societal implications. This framing is identifiable in Org.#1, #3, #5, #6, #8, #9, and #10. They consider procurement decisions as investments directed at long-term collective benefits, as noted by the Mayor from Org.#1: “It's an investment that's made […]. You have to see it in the long term, in terms of the impact it has both territorially and socially”. In a similar vein, decisions are grounded in a sense of responsibility toward the community and in the organization's public mission. This is corroborated by strategic planning documents from Org.#5, #6, #8, and #10, which emphasize commitment to collective interests and public mandate. Thus, the evidence indicates a tendency to conceive decisions through public purpose.

In addition, procurement decisions are valued for their environmental contribution, and environmental consequences are treated as integral to organizational choices, as indicated by the Environmental management and procurement technical specialist from Org.#1: “When we evaluate purchasing options, we always ask ourselves what environmental impact they carry with them”. This reflects the integration of environmental implications into decision evaluation.

Finally, in organizations exhibiting a public value–oriented framing, decisions are guided by a political vision that positions sustainability as central to the organization's strategic direction. As the public works specialist from Org.#5 stated: “The push toward sustainability started from the political component, which provided a clear direction.” This is also emphasized in programmatic documents from Org.#3, #6, #9, and #10, where sustainability is identified as a core strategic commitment. Decisions are thus shaped by sustainability-oriented leadership.

This study set out to answer the question: how do public organizations address the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability through procurement decision-making?

Our analysis yields three interrelated findings. It shows how the contextual conditions of public procurement amplify the difficulty of balancing economic and sustainability objectives; how organizations respond to this tension through differing SPP decision-making approaches; and how these responses are shaped by underlying decision framings.

First, we find that public procurement operates within a context marked by specific market, regulatory, and social conditions that render SPP decision-making particularly complex (Xiao et al., 2019). This complexity manifests in the difficulty of concurrently satisfying internal economic efficiency demands while delivering substantive environmental and social outcomes (Meqdadi et al., 2020).

Second, we show that public organizations respond differently to this intensified tension through SPP decisions. They adopt three distinct decision-making approaches – cost-driven, values-driven, and ambidextrous – which reflect alternative ways of prioritizing economic efficiency and sustainability objectives (Saunders et al., 2020). As such, these approaches can be understood in terms of the relative emphasis organizations attribute to each objective (Montabon et al., 2016; Wu and Pagell, 2011).

Third, we find that these approaches are shaped by a rational decision framing (Cabantous and Gond, 2011) and a public value–oriented decision framing (Glac, 2009; Keeney, 1996). These framings function as evaluative lenses that define what counts as legitimate and relevant in procurement decisions, thereby influencing which objective – economic efficiency, sustainability, or both – becomes salient when tensions arise (Hahn et al., 2014). In this way, decision framings help explain the observed variation in SPP decision-making approaches. Consistently, across cases, we observe a systematic alignment between the SPP decision-making approaches and the relative prominence of the two decision framings. This alignment reflects recurring configurations through which organizations interpret and respond to the economic efficiency-sustainability tension in procurement decisions (Table 6).

Our findings have implications for public procurement literature, SSCM research on sustainability-related tensions, and scholarship on ambidexterity in public organizations. First, we demonstrate that the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability in public procurement is not resolved uniformly but managed through distinct decision-making approaches. While prior SPP research has documented the structural and institutional conditions that generate this tension (Brammer and Walker, 2011; Plaček et al., 2021; Preuss and Walker, 2011) and the challenges it poses for public buyers (Wontner et al., 2020), organizational responses have remained underexplored. By identifying three decision-making approaches through which public organizations address the economic efficiency-sustainability tension, and uncovering how they are cognitively structured, our study extends the SPP literature toward a more processual understanding of organizational agency in responding to this tension.

Second, we contribute to research examining tensions and trade-offs in SSCM (Matos et al., 2020) by advancing a decision framing perspective that extends the dominant institutional logics lens (Razmdoost and Alinaghian, 2024; Schumm and Niehm, 2024). We identify decision framings as generative mechanisms through which competing objectives are rendered salient and legitimate in procurement decisions. In so doing, these framings shape how the tension between economic efficiency and sustainability is addressed, thereby giving rise to distinct decision-making approaches. While SSCM research has documented a diversity of organizational responses to sustainability-related tensions (Saunders et al., 2020; Wu and Pagell, 2011), such diversity has largely been explained through the perspective of institutional logics (e.g. Nath and Eweje, 2021; Sayed et al., 2017). This body of work shows how multiple, and often competing, logics – such as economic and sustainability ones (Leon Bravo et al., 2022) – affect organizational priorities in supply chain and procurement contexts (Schumm and Niehm, 2024; McLoughlin and Meehan, 2021). A case in point is social procurement, where Razmdoost and Alinaghian (2024) show how market and social logics define the conflicting institutional demands to which buying firms are subject. However, these studies primarily account for how competing institutional logics shape the broader set of values and priorities that organizations are exposed to, but provide limited insight into how organizations interpret, select, and mobilize these priorities within specific decision-making processes. Decision framings operate precisely at this level of analysis, denoting the cognitive structuring of decisions through which certain objectives and evaluative criteria become salient and legitimate (Hahn et al., 2014; Glac, 2009). Prior research has shown that decision framings may reflect different underlying orientations in how decisions are evaluated, emphasizing calculative rationality (Cabantous and Gond, 2011; Alexander et al., 2014) or value-based reasoning (Glac, 2009; Reuter et al., 2012; Keeney, 1996). Consistent with these theoretical insights, we find that procurement decisions are underpinned by a rational framing, grounded in economic constraints and organizational feasibility (Plaček et al., 2026), and a public value–oriented framing, centered on long-term societal benefits. By unpacking rational and public value-oriented decision framings, our study advances understanding of how tensions are worked through at the decision-making level, extending the focus beyond observable configurations of trade-off management to the underlying decision-making mechanisms that generate them.

These mechanisms are instantiated through three distinct framing patterns, each underpinning a different decision-making approach. When procurement decisions are predominantly framed through a rational decision framing, economic justifiability and organizational feasibility operate as the primary evaluative criteria (Alexander et al., 2014), rendering competing sustainability considerations less salient and legitimate in the decision process. As a result, internal economic efficiency concerns assume priority, leading to a cost-driven approach. This suggests the following proposition:

Conversely, when procurement decisions are primarily interpreted through a public value–oriented decision framing, long-term societal benefits anchor the evaluation of alternatives (Keeney, 1996), foregrounding sustainability objectives over internal economic efficiency considerations. A values-driven approach thus takes hold. Accordingly, we advance the following proposition:

In turn, when both framings are mobilized together, economic feasibility and long-term societal benefits are activated concurrently as evaluative criteria that structure the decision process. This steers procurement decisions toward the simultaneous legitimation and pursuit of internal economic efficiency and sustainability objectives, thereby resulting in an ambidextrous approach (Hahn et al., 2016). We therefore put forward the proposition below:

Overall, we illuminate how organizational responses to the economic efficiency–sustainability tension depend on how sustainable procurement decisions are cognitively framed. Figure 1 presents the research model, illustrating the patterns formalized in the three propositions.

Moreover, examining these mechanisms in the public procurement context, where the economic efficiency–sustainability tension is heightened by institutional constraints (Forster et al., 2025), extends our understanding of how decision framings may operate in private-sector SSCM settings when sustainability-related tensions leave limited room for managerial discretion.

Finally, by uncovering how decision framings shape distinct decision-making approaches in public procurement, we shed light on the emergence of an ambidextrous approach, offering new insights for research on ambidexterity in public organizations (Cannaerts et al., 2020; Gieske et al., 2020). Ambidexterity refers to the “ability to perform differing and often competing, strategic acts at the same time” (Simsek et al., 2009, p. 865). Prior studies have examined how public organizations may achieve ambidexterity through organizational arrangements, such as structural differentiation (Cannaerts et al., 2020) or external collaboration (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2019), but they overlook how it occurs within decision-making processes. Our findings show that, when the economic efficiency–sustainability tension is experienced in SPP decision-making, ambidexterity unfolds through the combination of rational and public value–oriented decision framings, enabling economic constraints and long-term societal benefits to be legitimized and mobilized concurrently. This suggests that ambidexterity in public organizations can be understood as the capability to sustain multiple evaluative orientations within the same decision process. By illuminating this mechanism, our study helps explain why some public organizations are able to reconcile internal economic efficiency with sustainability ambitions, whereas others gravitate toward more one-sided approaches.

Taken together, these contributions respond to the call by Roehrich et al. (2025, p. 1979) for “robust, context-sensitive frameworks that align operational performance with long-term environmental and social value creation”. By developing such a framework in the distinctive and institutionally demanding context of SPP, our study addresses a setting where this alignment is particularly difficult to achieve, yet consequential for both organizational and societal outcomes.

Our findings provide practical insights into how the tension between internal economic efficiency and sustainability ambitions can be recognized and handled in SPP decision-making. For public managers, the three decision-making configurations offer a diagnostic lens to reflect on how procurement choices are structured within their organization. Making explicit whether decisions are predominantly grounded in economic concerns, sustainability considerations, or both can increase awareness of which objectives tend to be prioritized, subordinated, or integrated in practice. Rather than prescribing a single “optimal” approach, our framework encourages public managers to examine how trade-offs are articulated and which evaluative criteria are legitimized in their organization.

For policymakers, our findings show that even within similar regulatory frameworks, public organizations address the economic efficiency-sustainability tension in markedly different ways through procurement decisions. This suggests that regulatory mandates shape the formal boundaries of procurement decisions, but do not determine the evaluative orientations through which competing economic and sustainability considerations are addressed in practice. Policy interventions should move beyond imposing further procedural requirements and instead support organizational decision-making capacities. Providing clearer guidance and practical tools for life-cycle and multi-criteria evaluation can reduce the perceived incompatibility between economic feasibility and sustainability ambitions.

Our study opens several avenues for future research. First, our framework invites broader empirical validation. Future research could examine whether the three decision-making approaches recur across larger samples and different institutional contexts. Comparative cross-country research could therefore assess whether and how variations in legislative frameworks, accountability regimes, and market maturity influence both the salience of the efficiency–sustainability tension and the ways it is addressed.

Second, future studies could investigate the antecedents of decision framings. While our analysis identifies rational and public value–oriented framings as key mechanisms shaping procurement decisions, it does not fully explain when and why one becomes dominant. Configurational studies could help clarify which factors shape decision framings and how they interact.

Third, our cross-sectional design captures SPP decision-making approaches and underlying framings at a specific point in time. Longitudinal and process-oriented research could examine how these framings and approaches evolve over time, for instance in response to external shocks.

Finally, future research could link SPP decision-making approaches to measurable procurement outcomes. Quantitative analyses of tender criteria, award weighting schemes, supplier participation patterns, or contract performance data could assess whether different approaches systematically produce distinct economic and sustainability outcomes, thereby strengthening the empirical basis of our framework.