Emerged tensions across cycles
| Emerged tensions | AR cycle(s) | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainability is prominent in strategy but weak in execution due to borrower resistance and policy ambiguity | Cycle 1, Cycle 2 | Cycle 1 showed disconnect between strategic vision and actual project focus. Cycle 2 revealed policy ambiguity and weak enforcement mechanisms |
| Emphasis on output metrics, while real sustainability impacts remain unmeasured or undefined | Cycle 1 | Evident lack of impact metrics and low maturity of value creation assessment system |
| Procurement is not seen as responsible for sustainability; responsibilities are siloed | Cycle 2 | Sustainability seen by the PD as outside its remit; limited collaboration between PD, ESCD, and SRD |
| Optional sustainability in procurement policy weakens enforceability | Cycle 2 | Procurement policy mentioned sustainability as optional, with enforcement relying on other departments’ safeguards |
| Limits in monitoring capacity constrain sustainability to first-tier suppliers | Cycle 2, Cycle 3 | Cycle 2 highlighted limited visibility and capacity for downstream monitoring. Cycle 3 confirmed similar constraints across MDBs |
| Regional MDBs emphasize inclusivity, global MDBs push for stronger supplier accountability – creating different models of engagement | Cycle 3 | Divergence emerged during MDBs’ joint SPP workshop discussions on supplier readiness strategies |
| SPP is seen as both necessary and risky in fragile contexts, complicating rollout | Cycle 3 | Procurement experts raised concerns about SPP exacerbating corruption risks in low-governance environments |
| Emerged tensions | AR cycle(s) | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Sustainability is prominent in strategy but weak in execution due to borrower resistance and policy ambiguity | Cycle 1, Cycle 2 | Cycle 1 showed disconnect between strategic vision and actual project focus. Cycle 2 revealed policy ambiguity and weak enforcement mechanisms |
| Emphasis on output metrics, while real sustainability impacts remain unmeasured or undefined | Cycle 1 | Evident lack of impact metrics and low maturity of value creation assessment system |
| Procurement is not seen as responsible for sustainability; responsibilities are siloed | Cycle 2 | Sustainability seen by the PD as outside its remit; limited collaboration between PD, ESCD, and SRD |
| Optional sustainability in procurement policy weakens enforceability | Cycle 2 | Procurement policy mentioned sustainability as optional, with enforcement relying on other departments’ safeguards |
| Limits in monitoring capacity constrain sustainability to first-tier suppliers | Cycle 2, Cycle 3 | Cycle 2 highlighted limited visibility and capacity for downstream monitoring. Cycle 3 confirmed similar constraints across MDBs |
| Regional MDBs emphasize inclusivity, global MDBs push for stronger supplier accountability – creating different models of engagement | Cycle 3 | Divergence emerged during MDBs’ joint SPP workshop discussions on supplier readiness strategies |
| SPP is seen as both necessary and risky in fragile contexts, complicating rollout | Cycle 3 | Procurement experts raised concerns about SPP exacerbating corruption risks in low-governance environments |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.