Table 5. Critical challenges to the...

Table 5.

Critical challenges to the implementation of social value

Variables	N	Mean	SD	Rank	Shapiro−Wilk statistic
The risk of violating regulatory frameworks and incurring significant financial penalties	100	1.17	0.667	1	0.795
Lack of support from the government and collaboration from other sectors	100	1.12	1.066	2	0.691
Lack of knowledge of SV	100	1.07	0.756	3	0.831
Legislation, bureaucratic and rigid nature of the procurement process	100	1.07	0.769	4	0.799
Lack of and limited guidelines for evaluating SV in tenders	100	1.07	0.987	5	0.752
Ingrained institutional norms, cultures, practices and supply chain relationships in the construction industry	100	1.02	1.005	6	0.791
This leads to the high cost of projects	100	1.00	0.752	7	0.821
It is not possible to audit and confirm the efficacy of SV procedures	100	0.97	0.771	8	0.802
Overemphasis on regulatory and commercial goals over socioeconomic goals	100	0.91	0.818	9	0.851
SV requirement results in the disqualification of some eligible tenderers from competition	100	0.88	0.769	10	0.827
SV is not seen as central to the delivery of construction projects	100	0.88	0.946	11	0.805
Difficult to implement with traditional procurement processes and practices	100	0.86	0.995	12	0.808
Lack of commitment from the construction industry to improve the wider society where construction activities impact society	100	0.83	0.975	13	0.862
It is possible that the secondary or socio-economic goals sought after in the public procurement process could not be attained	100	0.83	1.064	14	0.861
The beneficial impact of SV policies is dubious and minimal	100	0.82	0.783	15	0.844
SV restricts transparency and equity of the public procurement process	100	0.82	0.968	16	0.826
SV does not contribute to the attainment of project goals	100	0.81	0.982	17	0.868
SV leads to a decrease in economy and efficiency in government procurement	100	0.81	1.002	18	0.872
There is a lack of validity and effectiveness of socio-economic policies in public procurement	100	0.81	1.143	19	0.849
It leads to less competition in the public procurement process	100	0.80	0.804	20	0.857
Weak process of SV in the tendering process and review during post-contract award	100	0.80	1.025	21	0.761
There is a lack of empirical data to demonstrate the effectiveness of public procurement as a vehicle for SV	100	0.80	1.082	22	0.765
SV pushes the construction industry into a state of institutional instability	100	0.79	0.868	23	0.804
Deliverables in SV are poorly defined, ambiguous and do not include measurable and quantifiable requirements	100	0.79	0.913	24	0.857
It is difficult to balance the competing goals of public administration and SV	100	0.78	1.060	25	0.793
SV results in the unjust and inequitable treatment of contractors	100	0.74	0.848	26	0.867
Misalignment in the targets set for SV policies and the capacity of the construction industry to implement these targets	100	0.69	0.961	27	0.868
SV leads to the deterioration of clarity and transparency in public procurement practices	100	0.67	0.995	28	0.882
Differences in the logic between private and public organizations and misalignment of incentives	100	0.38	1.543	29	0.791

Variables	N	Mean	SD	Rank	Shapiro−Wilkstatistic
The risk of violating regulatory frameworks and incurring significant financial penalties	100	1.17	0.667	1	0.795
Lack of support from the government and collaboration from other sectors	100	1.12	1.066	2	0.691
Lack of knowledge of SV	100	1.07	0.756	3	0.831
Legislation, bureaucratic and rigid nature of the procurement process	100	1.07	0.769	4	0.799
Lack of and limited guidelines for evaluating SV in tenders	100	1.07	0.987	5	0.752
Ingrained institutional norms, cultures, practices and supply chain relationships in the construction industry	100	1.02	1.005	6	0.791
This leads to the high cost of projects	100	1.00	0.752	7	0.821
It is not possible to audit and confirm the efficacy of SV procedures	100	0.97	0.771	8	0.802
Overemphasis on regulatory and commercial goals over socioeconomic goals	100	0.91	0.818	9	0.851
SV requirement results in the disqualification of some eligible tenderers from competition	100	0.88	0.769	10	0.827
SV is not seen as central to the delivery of construction projects	100	0.88	0.946	11	0.805
Difficult to implement with traditional procurement processes and practices	100	0.86	0.995	12	0.808
Lack of commitment from the construction industry to improve the wider society where construction activities impact society	100	0.83	0.975	13	0.862
It is possible that the secondary or socio-economic goals sought after in the public procurement process could not be attained	100	0.83	1.064	14	0.861
The beneficial impact of SV policies is dubious and minimal	100	0.82	0.783	15	0.844
SV restricts transparency and equity of the public procurement process	100	0.82	0.968	16	0.826
SV does not contribute to the attainment of project goals	100	0.81	0.982	17	0.868
SV leads to a decrease in economy and efficiency in government procurement	100	0.81	1.002	18	0.872
There is a lack of validity and effectiveness of socio-economic policies in public procurement	100	0.81	1.143	19	0.849
It leads to less competition in the public procurement process	100	0.80	0.804	20	0.857
Weak process of SV in the tendering process and review during post-contract award	100	0.80	1.025	21	0.761
There is a lack of empirical data to demonstrate the effectiveness of public procurement as a vehicle for SV	100	0.80	1.082	22	0.765
SV pushes the construction industry into a state of institutional instability	100	0.79	0.868	23	0.804
Deliverables in SV are poorly defined, ambiguous and do not include measurable and quantifiable requirements	100	0.79	0.913	24	0.857
It is difficult to balance the competing goals of public administration and SV	100	0.78	1.060	25	0.793
SV results in the unjust and inequitable treatment of contractors	100	0.74	0.848	26	0.867
Misalignment in the targets set for SV policies and the capacity of the construction industry to implement these targets	100	0.69	0.961	27	0.868
SV leads to the deterioration of clarity and transparency in public procurement practices	100	0.67	0.995	28	0.882
Differences in the logic between private and public organizations and misalignment of incentives	100	0.38	1.543	29	0.791

Source: Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable