Sustainability Certification and Green Public Procurement: Ideals and Outcomes in a New Jersey School District

Abstract

The implementation of sustainability and green public procurement (GPP) initiatives in school districts has been the subject of some debate; questions over definitions and programme goals have led to inconsistency and concerns about programme achievements. The legitimacy of programmes rests not only with the announcement of policy by officials, but with adherence to policy and staff buy-in. This study examines barriers districts face, and makes recommendations based upon district experience on ways to successfully implement sustainability and GPP initiatives. A review of the literature on GPP and legitimacy in the execution of public functions within the education domain begins the study. Major components relative to best practices for GPP programmes are studied through the review of GPP-related documents from a school district in New Jersey considered as an exemplar of such programmes. Analysis of an interview with the district’s representatives suggests that, despite the normative approval such programmes receive, and widespread understanding of the rationale for pursuing such initiatives, there remain critical failings in implementation of these programmes, stemming from education, resourcing of initiatives and prioritization of green procurement in relation to other district priorities. The study concludes with lessons learned from this case, which is important given its positioning within New Jersey as an exemplar and recommendations for future research where work in this area is needed.

Keywords

Green public procurement sustainability greenwashing sense-making school districts

In recent years, school districts throughout the United States have faced budget challenges, requiring school boards and administrators to consider their spending habits and look for ways to cut costs. Schools and school districts have set about accomplishing their tasks often with a reduced budget, necessitating constraint or dissolution of programmes, leaving staff vacancies open or forcing draconian reductions in operations. Private schools are sometimes faced with lower enrolment, due to escalating costs in a difficult economy. These are challenging times for education; stewardship of resources to achieve student competencies, in an era of increasing competitiveness on a global scale, could not be more important.

In this context, various approaches to a fuller accounting of spending by organizations and the impact of operations have been sought. These programmes, which focus on environmental or social impacts, may seek great impacts to the world inside and outside organizations, but from a fiscal perspective, such initiatives can negatively impact an organization’s bottom line. School districts and their leaders must respond strategically to competing priorities and the desires and interests of a variety of stakeholder groups; attention to the financial bottom line is essential, even as leaders engage the political context (Kim & Ryu, 2017). Green public procurement (GPP), ‘procurement by public institutions, which includes environmentally friendly criteria, which can be considered to be included in the Sustainable Public Procurement concept’ (Pacheco-Blanco & Bastante-Ceca, 2016, p. 649) is a factor commonly employed in acquisitions processes, and has achieved some acceptance in school district applications. GPP is differentiated from the more overarching framework of sustainable public procurement, which includes more factors of sustainability, as it is a ‘process whereby organisations meet their needs for goods, services, works and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life basis in terms of generating benefits not only for the organisation, but also for the society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to the environment’ (UNEP, 2013, p. 11).

The nature of the American school experience with sustainability, specifically GPP, is not well studied. There are questions of legitimacy of the education enterprise, public and private, where green procurement objectives are seen as extraneous to the primary mission of education, in an era of fiscal constraint. Schools may not have been able to rationalize the choice, beyond the political and symbolic benefit of pursuing such programmes, but apprehend the importance of the concept as a general matter. We seek to understand: ‘What can be learned from sustainability certification programmes that incorporate GPP in the case of schools and school districts?’

This study focuses on the experience with GPP of a public school district in New Jersey, USA, a critical case given the district’s attention to green procurement; the district adheres to outside certification standards of the Sustainable Jersey for Schools programme (having achieved at least bronze status at all seven of its schools, meaning that the schools have established a team for programme implementation, met 2 of 10 ‘priority actions’ in 6 of 19 categories, and achieved a score of 150 points; Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020a). This school district instituted a GPP programme in 2016, supported by a variety of regulations and initiatives. The programme is considered a model within the state education system, receiving significant grant funding for its efforts. However, questions remain about the outcomes and efficacy of the programme, vis-à-vis the cost. The study begins with a literature review on GPP, and considers greenwashing and sense-making in the execution of public functions within the education domain. A content analysis of documents from the Sustainable Jersey for Schools programme provides not only clues to the rationale for participation by school districts, but also raises questions about the nature of the agreement to participate, and the value of programme initiatives towards achieving procurement ends that are truly green. An interview with the district’s representatives was undertaken to discern the rationale for pursuing the initiative, and lessons learned from implementation thus far. It was found that training in green procurement and lack of buy-in, commitment and resourcing of these efforts, presented considerable barriers for staff assigned to the implementation of the programme. The vagueness introduced by the language of the agreement and the programme itself, and the competing priorities of school districts in times of fiscal constraint, suggests serious issues with the primarily normative value brought by certification programmes, when real change is sorely needed.

Literature Review

This literature review concerning GPP begins with a definition and explanation of GPP, what it looks like in an organizational context and the placement of GPP in the global context. Next, economic and political perspectives on GPP are offered as well as discussion of challenges and barriers of GPP initiatives and training in GPP. This is followed by a discussion of greenwashing and the gap that sometimes exists between policy announcement, evidencing the normative value placed by organizations in GPP initiatives and the reality of achievement and management of competing priorities. Finally, the legitimacy of GPP in New Jersey schools is discussed.

Green Public Procurement

GPP is typically seen as a voluntary environmental initiative, where public organizations consciously purchase products and services that have a lesser negative impact on the environment (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Majernik et al., 2017; Rainville, 2017; Terman & Smith, 2018), than choosing products and services with a low eco-efficiency metric (Koltun, 2010). Organizations that exercise acquiring goods that follow the standards of GPP pay attention to numerous criteria measures (Rainville, 2017). An example of an extensive system of GPP criteria is that offered by the European Union, covering purchases from utilities to catering, and striving for ‘a good balance between environmental performance, cost considerations, market availability and ease of verification’ (European Commission, 2019). These measures include but are not limited to energy efficiencies, eco-labels, emission strengths, noise output and environmental management standards (Rainville, 2017).

GPP is still in an infancy stage although it continues to grow in its contribution to public organizations’ use of environmentally friendly products (Testa et al., 2016). Because of its newness, policies involving GPP continue to emerge and undergo transformations as policy makers seek to position GPP appropriately within organizations (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Rainville, 2017). Unfortunately, some policies fail to effectively and efficiently attain established criteria (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Mphela & Shunda, 2018; Yakovlev et al., 2018). If an organization is faced with competing priorities, for example, a lack of revenue to support existing programmes and green initiatives that may be seen as value-added rather than essential, then GPP programmes may be limited to establishment of criteria and intent to achieve enhancements.

Some organizations may be less inclined to remain committed to the GPP cause (Eikelboom et al., 2018; Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Mphela & Shunda, 2018). Research indicates that performing a cost analysis and carbon footprint analysis can help organizations see the financial implications of the GPP policies they are considering implementing (Cerutti et al., 2016). If possible, organizations may even consider using a full environmental footprint analysis to gain a broader understanding of the impact their current policies have on the environment (Cerutti et al., 2016). Since different instruments can reveal different perspectives of GPP considerations, organizations and policy makers should employ as many instruments as possible to ensure they have a full picture of how any policy will affect the organizations (Eikelboom et al., 2018; Lundberg & Marklund, 2018). Including both environmental and non-environmental instruments and standards can broaden that picture even further (Rainville, 2017).

As suggested above, GPP is much more evident across Europe than it is in the United States (Testa et al., 2016). This is not to say that the United States does not employ GPP initiatives, but the European Union has implemented GPP policies that have been more successful, both economically and environmentally, than those implemented in the United States (Testa et al., 2016). Countries such as Finland, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden have experienced significant reductions in their CO₂ emissions as a direct result of GPP practices (Testa et al., 2016). In Norway, the government has taken a stronger stance on environmental issues and passed laws and regulations that have turned voluntary initiatives into mandates to protect environmental considerations (Sparrevik et al., 2018). Spanish universities are serving as models for how to be more energy efficient through the use of new equipment and building with materials that conserve energy (Fuentes-Bargues et al., 2018).

Economic and Political Perspectives

The economic perspective of GPP offers an array of complex considerations (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018). Organizations may need to pay more for goods and services that meet the GPP standards but may end up paying less towards such entities as energy sources (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018). The economic needs of an organization using GPP could best be managed by implementing economic instruments that help the organization establish the criteria for evaluating the goods the organization is considering acquiring (Majernik et al., 2017; Yakovlek et al., 2018). As organizations look to grow and flourish economically and environmentally, they need to achieve a balance between the benefit and cost objectives (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Mphela & Shunda, 2018). This balance can best be achieved by implementing and following policies that are designed to correct any market failures that may exist (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018).

Previous work has also focused on the role of green technology and priority-setting in building construction; this is directly relevant for school districts, often plagued with aging, inefficient infrastructure, though careful benefit-cost analysis to calculate benefit and further document need, making the case for the long-term benefit, is crucial (Khoshbakht et al., 2017). The school construction environment may present a number of factors that can be considered barriers to inclusion of green approaches, including time and resource constraints, poor state of existing buildings, and the need to be accountable to stakeholders, including voters who may quarrel with GPP approaches, absent understanding. The long-term thinking of sustainability may run counter to ‘low bid’ requirements of public purchasing, which may not fully account for value-added (Hurtado et al., 2018).

GPP, like most sustainability initiatives, can be heavily impacted by politics (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Sparrevik et al., 2018). Although GPP may have started through voluntary channels, more and more legislation is being passed to regulate, monitor and enforce GPP efforts at various levels of government (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Majernik et al., 2017; Sparrevik et al., 2018). Public agencies governed by elected public officials are allocating funds within their yearly budgets to be spent specifically on GPP initiatives that may positively impact society’s sustainability (Sparrevik et al., 2018). Furthermore, these initiatives are backed by formal government policies that function as legal requirements thus transitioning these once voluntary initiatives into compulsory ones (Sparrevik et al., 2018). This type of leverage that requires organizations to participate in GPP would never be possible without politicians influencing the passing of these laws and regulations (Sparrevik et al., 2018).

Financial implications associated with GPP are a consideration for organizations (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018; Sparrevik et al., 2018; Yakovlek et al., 2018). Therefore, the relationship between the buyers and the suppliers is of paramount concern (Sparrevik et al., 2018). Suppliers want to get as much money for their goods as possible and buyers want to acquire goods for as low of a price as possible. To maintain the integrity of this relationship, public procurement legislation formally regulates the cooperation between the buyer and the supplier (Sparrevik et al., 2018; Terman & Smith, 2018; Tomossy & Alam, 2017). Additionally, public procurement rules look to mitigate waste, fraud and corruption that can compromise the buyer/supplier relationship (Sparrevik et al., 2018).

Buyers have a responsibility to their organizations to make purchases that align with GPP standards, which also meet the needs of the organizations (Igarashi et al., 2015, 2017; Majernik et al., 2017; Terman & Smith, 2018). The decision-making process of which goods buyers should choose can be complex, but buyers may be able to navigate the tricky process by following specific criteria that assess the environmental implications of the products (Igarashi et al., 2015; Tomossy & Alam, 2017). Research indicates that buyers will use one of the four strategies in the decision-making process: to ignore, incorporate, insist on, or integrate the environmental criteria in their decision-making process (Igarashi et al., 2015); this typology may simplify the decision-making process that exists in practice.

Challenges and Barriers

The implementation of GPP initiatives faces numerous challenges and barriers (Testa et al., 2016). Some of these challenges inhibit organizations from even considering implementing GPP initiatives while other challenges may arise at any stage of implementation (Testa et al., 2016). As organizations look to develop economically, socially, and environmentally, GPP initiatives can often satisfy the needs of the organizations to grow in these areas (Cerutti et al., 2016; Sparrevik et al., 2018). However, if organizations are unaware or possess very little knowledge in the area, they may fail to even consider implementing GPP initiatives (Cerutti et al., 2016; Eikelboom et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016). As a result, these organizations may never grow and develop, failing to realize their full potential (Cerutti et al., 2016; Mphela & Shunda, 2018; Testa et al., 2016).

Other organizations may have some understanding of GPP initiatives and want to implement them but fail to do the proper research to determine exactly how to implement them to maximize their potential (Cerutti et al., 2016; Mphela & Shunda, 2018; Testa et al., 2016). As mentioned earlier, performing a carbon footprint analysis or a full environmental analysis can provide organizations with the useful information prior to implementing procurement initiatives (Cerutti et al., 2016). However, if the analysis is not done correctly or not done thoroughly, the information acquired from the analysis may lead the organization down a wrong path, thus sabotaging their efforts (Cerutti et al., 2016).

GPP initiatives often require organizations to output initial money to upgrade equipment or build facilities that are GPP compliant (Cerutti et al., 2016; Testa et al., 2016). The idea is that these initiatives may pay off in the long run, but the initial cost associated with the initiatives may be a deterrent for organizations to undertake such projects (Cerutti et al., 2016; Testa et al., 2016). In these cases, the risk outweighs the benefits and organizations choose to maintain the status quo (Cerutti et al., 2016; Testa et al., 2016). An examination of organizations that have successfully implemented GPP may serve useful in understand the scope and resources necessary to transform an organization’s economic, social and environmental considerations through GPP (Cerutti et al., 2016; Rainville, 2017; Testa et al., 2016).

Research indicates that awareness and knowledge are the factors that greatly influence the development of GPP techniques (Eikelboom et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016). All personnel should be well versed on GPP procedures and be committed to the cause (Eikelboom et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016). Furthermore, they should possess the skills necessary to effectively execute GPP techniques (Testa et al., 2016). These are high expectations for public organizations increasingly beset with resource constraints. Public organizations need to make a commitment to the cause and support the development of resources that can be used in the long term (Eikelboom et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2016). Organizations can help themselves significantly by following a framework based on knowledge where personnel can refer to the framework for direction, information, and training for all tasks related to GPP (Testa et al., 2016).

GPP is a mindset (Testa et al., 2016). A successful GPP mindset views environmental considerations to be just as important as the quality and price of the goods (Testa et al., 2016). However, achieving this mindset can be challenging especially when organizations are hyper-focused on acquiring goods for the lowest price (Lundberg & Marklund, 2018). Organizations also exist in institutional and political environments, with stakeholders that may not agree on the value or validity of GPP. Laws and regulations that require organizations to follow basic green procurement regulations can help with the initial shift in mindset which can then lead to a permanent one focused on acting in such a way that promotes all types of sustainability (Sparrevik et al., 2018), but leadership on the value of GPP must extend throughout the organization.

In supporting pro-environmental behaviour, employee awareness of the importance of the impacts of organizational actions can help; performance feedback and incentives, along with provision of environmental infrastructure to support such efforts, can also help (Young et al., 2013). Even with direction from organizational leaders about the importance of GPP, it is not necessarily self-evident to some employees that the programme is worthwhile. Further, even in an environment that supports sustainability and GPP initiatives, success favours employees that are adaptable and proactive in supporting programmes. An orientation toward action that considers the future may not align with short-run thinking, which may be prevalent in bureaucratic organizations beholden to political interests. Focusing on micro-level considerations, such as employee attitudes and adaptive capacity, may result in more positive outcomes than discussions of organizational culture and pronouncements of ‘green’ commitments, absent the detailed work necessary to bring about the desired positive change (Strauss et al., 2017).

Greenwashing and GPP Certification

Even as environmental consciousness has increased, there has been a growing concern about the potential for programmes that seek to gain the political and rhetorical value of environmental policy, without actually addressing many of the chief concerns of sustainability of organizations and the environment. It is generally understood by public organizations, in particular, that in the use of public dollars, there is a need for responsible stewardship of resources. Stakeholders may pressure public organizations into acceptance of environmental initiatives that are largely symbolic (Testa et al., 2018).

Greenwashing as focus of the literature takes up the concern that exists when claim is made to environmentally–friendly standards, but little or nothing is done to achieve environmentally positive outcomes. Greenwashing occurs when environmental performance is poor, but there is a tendency to speak positively about the effort. Among drivers of greenwashing behaviour are consumer (stakeholder) expectations, regulatory contexts, organizational incentives, and ‘optimistic bias’ (Delmas & Burbano, 2011). Inherent in greenwashing is a misleading of the public (active or passive) about the objectives and achievement of an environment-related policy or programme, including vagueness, false claims and reporting of outcomes that cannot be verified. Because standards tend to be flimsy, practically any programme can be made to be ‘green’ depending on how words are defined and used (Schmuck et al., 2018).

A problem with greenwashing is that being credited for efforts that do not result in green outcomes perhaps discourages the potential for organizations to make substantive changes that would actively and positively address environmental needs. A somewhat more cynical view suggests that there are benefits to allowing, if not encouraging, greenwashing, in that at least there is an awareness of the need for individuals, organizations, and communities to be more mindful of environmental impacts. Even where there is an expectation and willingness to pay more for a green product, organizations—especially public sector organizations—may be less willing to spend more on green products and make the case that the purchase is worth the extra money. The assumption of acceptable value for green products does not necessarily permeate whole organizations (Lee et al., 2018).

Legitimacy of environmental efforts and actual achievements have been related in the literature, and it has been suggested that the public can discern, and respond negatively to, greenwashing (Berrone et al., 2017). Taking credit for environmental efforts, when those efforts are simply following legal requirements, has been shown to have little effect on how the public sees such efforts, though lies and half-truths can have injurious effects on organizational reputation (deJong et al., 2020). Some (e.g., Seele & Gatti, 2017) have suggested that greenwashing is co-created an ‘in the eye of the beholder’, in accusing organizations of misleading the public. For our purposes here, the discussion of greenwashing does not suggest intent, or a purposeful desire to mislead the public, but instead the potential for achievement of outcomes that is far less than what is offered by programmes full of bombast: proclaiming loudly the ability to change the world, in exchange for little to no effort or expenditure of resources.

Sense-making

Sense-making is a crucial component of GPP initiatives as stakeholders work to organize their experiences to better understand how they should proceed (Seidel et al., 2015). Therefore, the authors paid careful attention to the participants’ sense-making in analysing the data. The sense-making constructs of socialization, enactment and plausibility were given particular attention. In the case of a sustainability certification programme, the assigned local programme leadership may not be entirely clear on the rationale for the programme, or how to attain buy-in from fellow employees in pursuit of programme objectives. It may not even be clear that broad programme success is desired by the organizational leadership, given the lack of resources provided to such efforts. In such instances, the leadership team for the initiative must try to make sense of the requirement, and to achieve as much as possible under severe constraints. In the absence of a top-down directive, a bottom-up problem-solving orientation can develop.

In terms of socialization, many GPP initiatives require collaboration, where stakeholders learn from each other and work together to create understanding and meaning of their activities (Weick, 1995). The enactment process refers to the actions taken by the stakeholders in carrying out the GPP initiatives (Weick, 1995), while plausibility is favoured over accuracy as individuals traverse through the sense-making process and people create reasonable connections (Weick, 1995). The specifics of how these constructs emerged in the analysis of the data will be discussed in the subsequent section of this study.

The Case of a Public School District

The literature reveals that GPP is a favourable consideration for organizations looking to improve environmentally, economically and socially (Cerutti et al., 2016; Sparrevik et al., 2018). General principles could be applied to New Jersey school districts and provide insights into how GPP could improve them in all three areas. Carbon footprint analyses and life cycle assessments can give school districts a thorough understanding of how the districts’ activities impact the environment (Cerutti et al., 2016; Sparrevik et al., 2018). Some GPP initiatives could reduce the districts’ negative impact on the environment and promote a more sustainable structure that has both immediate and long-term positive outcomes.

In 2016, the school district reviewed here (referred to as ‘the school district’ or ‘the district’ to provide for confidentiality of interview respondents) began its commitment to policies and practices that reflect environmental sustainability and GPP. The district follows a certification programme for New Jersey public schools called Sustainable Jersey for Schools. This non-profit organization provides a multitude of incentives including finances, training and other tools that support public schools’ pursuit to implementing meaningful sustainability programmes. To date, the district board of education has approved 12 policies and regulations regarding sustainability. One of these policies is concerned with environmentally preferred purchasing, also known as green purchasing. Within this policy there are nine products or services, which the board of education will look to employ as long as the cost of these products and services fall within the constraints of the budget. Not only is the board’s goal to do its part in contributing to environmental sustainability efforts through GPP, but they also strive to be a model for others to emulate.

Materials and methods for this evaluation are discussed in the following section.

Materials and Methods

This section outlines the materials and methods used for this study. First, the purpose of the study is explicitly given after which it is explained how the sense-making theory was used to frame the research. Second, there is a discussion of qualitative research and how it is applied to this study. Next, there is a discussion of the research site and the data sources. Finally, an overview of the methods used to analyze the data is provided.

Purpose

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore sustainability certification, and specifically GPP activities in New Jersey schools, given the number of other competing priorities. There is a need to explore how GPP activities fit into the priorities of running a school district. Beyond noting descriptively when the GPP effort became a priority for the school district, there is value in exploring the lived experience of those involved in the implementation of the programme. Certification programmes in green efforts are more and more common and remain understudied, even though they are often popularly accepted without much thought. Understanding the worldview of the programme implementers and decision-makers, and the nature of their involvement with stakeholders within the district and in the community, can help others better comprehend the opportunities and potential barriers that exist for their own programmes. For our purposes here, the review allows for an exploration of the legitimacy of GPP efforts in a New Jersey school district, in the context of a state-wide programme (Sustainable Jersey for Schools) that offers achievement of sustainable outcomes for schools and communities.

Qualitative research is best suited for studies that look to understand an issue through text and visual documents rather than numerical ones (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2017). Qualitative research relies on observation and uses a defined set of interpretive tools to draw meaning from these observations (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Meaningful qualitative research uses a variety of sources for analysis and data collection (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Furthermore, these sources are drawn from and examined in their natural settings to preserve the authenticity of the data (Creswell & Poth, 2017). Analysis of the data looks to interpret it and make sense of it in a way that brings meaning to readers in such a way that they understand better the issue that being investigated (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

Qualitative research is typically broken down into five approaches, one of which is the case study (Creswell & Poth, 2017). The instrument of a case study allows the researcher to examine and evaluate an issue or situation with the hope of producing a detailed report that provides insight into the topic under investigation (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2017). Data should be collected from multiple sources to create a more robust picture of the situation (Creswell & Poth, 2017). The researcher then looks to examine each of the sources from different perspectives to acquire details and descriptions at all layers in the quest to add as many dimensions as possible to the analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2017).

In this study, we determined that the best way to more fully understand the experience of the school district is to conduct a case study. This particular case study relies on a content analysis of various green procurement programme documents, and an interview conducted with school officials on the topic of procurement and green procurement specifically.

As researchers, the authors are approaching this case from a mixed perspective; the lead author lives in the state of New Jersey and conducted the interview; the case was known to the author by researching schools with exceptional sustainability programmes, particularly the Sustainable Jersey programme. The researcher had no prior knowledge of this school and does not have any bias either for or against it. The second author has written about GPP and purchasing programmes in the past, but has no direct experience with the case in question.

Data Sources and Site Selection

The authors were particularly interested in developing an understanding of what was being requested by the certification programme, and how this programme was being operationalized and implemented by the school district. There was a desire to know what worked in the effort, what worked less well and how the GPP programme was considered in terms of organizational legitimacy and as a legitimate pursuit for internal and external stakeholders.

Certification programme documents from Sustainable Jersey for Schools formed the corpus for the analysis of documents. The site choice was limited to a representative school district in New Jersey that participates in the Sustainable Jersey for Schools programme, and which has achieved a bronze certification level.

The semi-structured interview questions and research protocol were reviewed by the University of West Florida for IRB purposes; this project was assigned IRB review number IRB 2019–141. Candidates for interview were selected on the basis of their role in relationship to the procurement process. Recruitment for interview took place first by an email and then a phone call; while the district agreed to make interviewees available, only two employees who work with public procurement in the school district agreed to be interviewed. The interview was recorded using a smartphone; files were immediately downloaded to a flash drive and deleted from the device to maintain confidentiality. For purposes of confidentiality, the officials interviewed are referred to generically.

Analysis Overview

The interview was transcribed and reviewed for multi-cycle coding. The coding approaches used were descriptive for the first cycle, and for the second cycle, axial coding to identify dominant codes and themes (Saldaña, 2016). The first author coded the transcripts first and then the second author coded the same transcripts. The codes were compared and adjustments made to clarify any unclear points with the authors coming to agreement on major themes.

Because multiple approaches (document review, interview) are being used to explore the case, there is a better potential for validity. The approach was ultimately reflexive, open to change to best reflect the experience of the school with its green procurement programme and sought to develop understanding from an inductive perspective. Because authors are involved in the data collection, a key role is played in the case study, the analysis and this exploration in writing (Creswell & Creswell, 2018); while we have interest in the case, the authors have no particular bias, either positive or negative, about the case and its implementation of green principles. The selection of the case, again, was made purposively; this district was chosen because of its reputation for having sustainability efforts in all areas.

Findings

Analysis of Sustainable Jersey for School Certification Programme Documents

The Sustainable Jersey for Schools website paints an expansive view of programme benefits, stating that ‘Schools will implement practices that lead to cost savings in energy, water and garbage bills. The programme will help improve efficiency, cut waste and free up money for the classroom. Participating schools/districts will be alerted to available grant money’ (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020a). Sustainable Jersey indicates that participating schools are ‘promoted on our website, in our publications, in the media and at events’ (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020a). There is a mention of community benefit: ‘By becoming certified, you align your school/district with your community’s values while saving your resources as well as nature’s’ (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020a).

The Sustainable Jersey for Schools programme, part of a larger Sustainable Jersey organization, seeks to standardize efforts that ostensibly lead to green outcomes for school purchasing through their certification programme. The basis of the programme is first in an agreement (adoption of resolution) by a school board to participate in the programme (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020c), and then in attainment of points based on a list of actions (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020d).

Guidance for the required resolution (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020c) stresses that Sustainable Jersey for Schools is a voluntary programme, which ‘does not obligate the school district to any specific time commitment or budgetary obligations’ (p. 1). The resolution ‘must’ be passed by the school board intending to participate. A suggested resolution draft is provided, which mentions an intention to ‘focus attention and efforts on matters of sustainability … and pursue initiative that will lead to Sustainable Jersey for Schools Certification’, as well as general affirmations of sustainability principles (recycling, reduction of toxics, purchase of recycled paper and clean energy, among them). There is a commitment to form a leadership ‘green team’ and a commitment to pursue certification, which will build ‘a sustainable school district through the implementation of [program] actions’ (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020b, 2).

There is some dissonance in the recommended resolution document. While the programme is entirely voluntary, this is nevertheless a formalized agreement to commit to the pursuit of certification in this programme, and that this programme will lead to a sustainable school district. The guidance (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020b, 1) clearly indicates that there are no resource obligations or commitments to the programme, and yet, the creation of a team of professionals to implement the programme is indeed a commitment to the outlay of resources. From the beginning, the programme leads to the expectation that it is a commitment that requires no time or resources, which is clearly not the case, especially if sustainability is to be achieved. The stated voluntary nature of the programme is at odds with a formalized resolution of commitment, when the non-profit organization has no firm commitment to participating members of either time or resources to affect the programme offered.

Upon completion of the resolution requirement and registration, member school districts may begin seeking out points toward certification. Table 1 includes an overview of the 19 major action categories of the certification programmes for schools, ordered by total available points in each category. There are a total of 1205 points available, as of February, 2020.

Table 1.

Major Categories of Sustainable Jersey for Schools Actions and Points Available

Major Category	Example Themes	Total Possible Points	Percentage
Healthy school environments	Indoor air quality, healthy water, pest management	130	10.8
Student learning (priority)	Sustainability education; sustainability education for various grade levels	115	9.5
Integrated science, technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM)	STEAM planning and professional development	95	7.9
Energy efficiency	Energy tracking, behaviour-based conservation programmes	80	6.6
Learning environment	Arts instruction and participation; outdoor classroom	75	6.2
Student and community outreach	Mandatory green team (worth 10–15 points); outreach; fair	75	6.2
Board leadership and planning	Existence of sustainability policy, description of impact ‘it has/will have on school community’, professional development, asset mapping	70	5.8
Climate mitigation and renewable energy	Carbon footprint reduction, renewable energy purchase, geothermal and solar	70	5.8
Green design	Building policy standards and training	70	5.8
Waste management and recycling	Conduct waste audit; recycle documents; reuse materials	70	5.8
Food and nutrition	‘Healthy food choices’, local food, garden	50	4.1
Student and staff wellness	Wellness council; physical activity programmes	50	4.1
Green purchasing	Existence of green purchasing policy; purchasing recycled paper; electric and propane fleet	45	3.7
Diversity and equity	Accessibility of communications, ‘Breakfast After the Bell’	40	3.3
Green cleaning	Supplies and equipment	40	3.3
School grounds	Biodiversity & green infrastructure	40	3.3
Student safety	‘Safe routes to school’, pedestrian/driver awareness	40	3.3
School culture and climate	‘Inclusive environments where all can thrive’ (p. 11); emotional learning	30	2.5
Innovation projects	Open—not described elsewhere	20	1.7
	Total	1205	0.0

Source: Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020c).

A number of potential areas of concern may be reasoned from the categories included in the scoring system and points available for each. It is not clear why some categories receive more points than others, or how much the categories or their component elements directly reflect attainment of sustainability if achieved. The rationale or method for point assignment is not well explained. The categories included are a hodgepodge of points of potential trouble for school districts and schools: from easily addressed matters—items where points can be earned from the existence of a document or plan, for example to markedly more complicated issues, such as inclusion of green building and addressing indoor air quality in schools, where serious financial constraints may be present. The list includes some ‘nice to have’ items, such as renewable energy directly associated with individual schools. Throughout, the expectation is that districts and schools ‘explain what has been accomplished and the impact it has/will have on the school community,’ usually accompanied by a request for one or more documents of effort. Some items, such as student safety and inclusion of arts in curricula, arguably have less to do with sustainability than other matters like green purchasing. In the school district case discussed here, the implementation of certification for the district is placed in the purchasing function—possibly a choice deserving additional discussion given that other major categories of action items for certification are associated with more points. While the purchasing function does touch a variety of aspects of operation for other departments, the level of influence and power resident in purchasing is perhaps more limited than direction that remains at the board level, or in other highly placed administrative quarters.

A category with great potential to be meaningful for schools—innovation projects—offered only 20 points (1.7% of all available points). The creation/existence of the mandatory ‘green team’ earns a district only 10–15 points, even though the care and maintenance of a working group like this is an ongoing resource drain. When points can be earned from empanelling a wellness council, for example, or just having a sustainability policy, there is obvious potential for gathering low-hanging fruit—taking points for what is already being done, rather than straining existing resources and moving into new areas of sustainability. When the ‘bronze’ certification could be had for a mere 150 points, not much has to be done, beyond this credit-taking, for a school district to be certified in this programme. From the perspective of potential greenwashing, there are reasons to be concerned about the nature of the proposed resolution offered to school districts by the organization and the actions list leading to award of points and increasing levels of certification.

The programme website as of this writing includes little apparent information about programme-wide outcomes. The media and communications page, for example, include links to social networking platforms (e.g., Twitter and Facebook). The social networking feeds include a sizeable proportion of posts that proclaim newly certified or participating school districts, in keeping with the programme benefit for announcement of participation described above (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020e). As of 11 February 2020, there are 347 registered districts in New Jersey, with 906 registered schools. Of these, 241 schools are certified (27%) and 18 schools in 10 districts have been certified as achieving the higher ‘silver’ status or 2% of all registered schools (Sustainable Jersey for Schools, 2020f). From social media posts, most schools receive attention for achieving the lowest level of certification (bronze), which, from a cost-benefit perspective, allows credit-taking and positive feeling about the efforts of the organization, but which may not require much in the way of either changing the prioritization of green efforts in the district and its schools, or discontinuing harmful practices. This social media effort could help spur additional activity, but the low levels of higher certification attainment call this into question.¹

Interview

As shown in the code frequency table (Miles et al., 2020), Table 2, staff members’ responses primarily dealt with areas of sense-making and implementation of GPP in a complex environment of competing priorities. Communication concerns were most frequent: interviewees commented about trouble getting the message out to staff, needing a champion for the effort and the sense of a disconnect between staff assigned to GPP, the school (staff and administration) and the students. Competing priorities were an issue—GPP was seen as ‘something extra’ in addition to the regular job, and ‘not a priority unless districts are going to get funding for it’. The effort does not go far enough because it is not made a priority. Even if administration desires to be recognized for their part in supporting a state-wide sustainability effort, the real test of this initiative is in implementation and the detail work of assuring that the effort will be successful. This happens at the staff level, with connections being made with responsible staff and proper resourcing of the effort. The responses suggest that there are some improvements to be made in this respect, which could ultimately help the GPP effort.

Table 2.

Code Frequency Table Showing Dominant Themes and Representative Codes

Major Themes	Representative Codes	Frequency of Theme in Interview	Percentage
Sense-making and implementation of the GPP concept	Concerns with communication; agree with GPP and try to accomplish it, but buy-in needed; concept is not a priority given competing responsibilities; changing behaviours within organization	64	39.26
Purchasing: Financing and competing priorities	GPP products and services cost-prohibitive; grants and incentive funding; add-on expenses to make the programme possible; recommended but not mandatory	35	21.47
Performance measurement	The role of GPP, scoring and point systems; finding examples of alignment with GPP; compliance	31	19.02
Personnel: Individual level—capacity for the job and functional responsibility	Lack of familiarity with sustainability; training-related concerns; capacity; concerns about job responsibility	23	14.11
Improvements and enhancements	Facilities improvements; filling station example project; hands-on research; enhancements supporting sustainability	8	4.91
GPP and sustainability as symbol	‘Make every effort’; new and long-term impact	2	1.23
		163	100.00

Source: Authors’ analysis of corpus.

The GPP effort is also undermined by the cost-prohibitive nature of green products and services. Even if this is a situation where life-cycle costs are not being considered, or the socially responsible cost must be considered, the short-run price of products and services is ultimately holding the greatest interest for administrators, in being directly accountable to communities and the taxpaying public. If the products and services to achieve the goals of GPP are ‘too expensive’, then this effort may devolve into a rhetorical manoeuvre rather than achievement of real gains for the environment, elimination of waste and reduction of the district’s carbon footprint. GPP efforts must be accompanied by a broader understanding of cost, including the ultimate burden of waste and impact on the environment, if slightly higher prices are to be borne without complaint. Given that this is not the case, one could say that GPP efforts are nascent in the district, even though the programme has been lauded as a leader.

To this point, performance measurement was a theme with considerable weight in the analysis. Sustainable Jersey for Schools has a point system for certification, with two levels of certification: ‘Bronze certification means a school has made a commitment to sustainability and succeeded in implementing significant first steps, while silver certification means a school has made significant progress in a number of categories toward sustainability and is a state-wide and national leader’.² This school district has achieved bronze status and is looking to move up to silver certification, so the notion that gaining credit within the programme is a priority is not a surprise. However, what was unexpected was the nature of the credit-seeking: much of the discussion centred on the need to identify existing practices where points could be gained readily, without much adjustment (‘done but not documented’). There is a need to see the benefit for cost involved, and this fact must be balanced against the nature of the certification programme, which asks the district to make increasing in-roads towards sustainability. However, up-front costs in GPP can be expensive, and this may undercut achievement of points for the higher level of certification.

The fourth major theme does in fact speak directly to the requirements of the Sustainable Jersey for Education programme—a commitment to sustainability as a normative concept and adoption of programmes in support of the effort. The bar in this respect is low compared to ‘silver’ certification, where expectations multiply into professional development, facilities/infrastructure and carbon footprint reduction bases for point allocation. The immediate rush of excitement for ‘bronze certification’ gives way to the reality that making a difference in sustainable terms requires considerable changes within not only the organization, but the built-environment of the district. Arguments can be made for these adjustments, but whether the benefit achieved can exceed the cost in the minds of the public is another question.

While the symbolic nature of the programme was not pointedly noted in the interview, it was identified in some sense via two particular comments: the idea that the district should ‘make every effort’ to achieve programme goals, and that the programme ‘was … great, in theory, this can benefit many generations. The long term. There is clear understanding of the long-run considerations that support the sustainability mindset; however, the achievement of such aims remain ‘just out of reach’ as staff assigned contend with limitations posed by competing priorities, the ability they have to require change via the legal and institutional framework, and the demands of a challenging operating environment, within the district and in the community. ‘Making every effort’ occurs within significant constraints: ‘Even the policy, if you look at the policy, the policy states we are going to make every effort. And we do, we make the effort’; but idealism encounters situations where sustainable solutions are not considered feasible.

A concept map follows (Figure 1) that serves to illustrate the interactions between competing roles and themes. Expectations of the public and administration weigh heavily on the process and procurement staff, forcing staff to make sense of the issue within their ability to comprehend the directives and needs of the programme; this in turn affects procurement processes and outcomes. One hopes that some of the sense made of this process is relayed back to the administration, to allow for at least the potential of enhancement in programme resources and backing, to help address significant gaps in organizational buy-in.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ work.

Analysis

The analysis of the data resulted in the emergence of several clear themes that revealed significant issues associated with the implementation of GPP as well as sustainability efforts in this school district. These themes centred on a lack of training, inconsistent buy-in from stakeholders and financial challenges that often inhibit and derail procurement and sustainability efforts. Additionally, policies and politics strongly dictate how procurement and sustainability efforts are carried out, and do not always have the desired outcome. The quest for state funding seemed to motivate an introspected look to assess initiatives already in place. Further investigation exposed symbolic use of GPP buzz words that at times lacked authenticity.

The interview responses aligned with concerns noted in the analysis of programme documents, specifically the tendency to pursue low-hanging fruit for certification points, without changing many institutional structures or approaches. While school districts commit to the programme, they assume no added cost or need for resources, as would be reasonably expected given the clear statement in the resolution proposed by Sustainable Jersey. When programme implementation seems to suggest a need for more resources, school districts might well recoil from such an ask, given that the agreement called for no obligations. The programme seems built largely on announcement—of new participants, mostly—and unfortunately, the leadership teams that take on the local implementation task in a school district may be under-supported and under-resourced to achieve much beyond a token certification.

For this particular study, as per the interview, only about four or five people were truly responsible and invested in implementing sustainability and procurement initiatives in the district. The data collected via the interview with two of these people reflected their pride and excitement in implementing sustainability and procurement initiatives. However, the financial implications associated with the programmes constantly surfaced as a barrier for why they could not implement as many initiatives as they would like. Ultimately, the feeling was that they would be thrilled to implement as much as they could, as long as the district did not have to pay for it. Any initiative that required little to no upfront money and produced an immediate cost savings to the district was a highly favoured initiative. On the other hand, if the initiative had a high initial cost and it would take years for the district to see a return on this investment, the chances of this initiative being implemented were very slim.

The importance and strength of partnerships, buy-in and communication are highly evident in the data. Throughout the interview, the two participants constantly fed off each other’s excitement and ideas, and exhibited a strong partnership in collaborating on sustainability and procurement initiatives. Each referenced the strong partnership they had with each other and how this partnership contributed significantly to the successful programmes they have implemented. While they felt strongly that they had a solid partnership, they often felt isolated and alone because other stakeholders, such as administrators, teachers and even parents, did not buy in to the importance of implementing sustainability and procurement initiatives. The sense was that if more people were to buy in, more programmes could be implemented resulting in tremendous growth of the district’s sustainability and procurement successes. It did not seem that there was an understanding of how to get stakeholders to buy in and this seems to be frustrating for the participants.

The data reflected a strong push and pull between wanting to implement sustainability and procurement efforts, and always facing some challenge or barrier. While the biggest barrier in this situation seemed to be the financial issues, significant barriers associated with poor understanding of expectations and a lack of training were also evident. Ineffective communication of goals and methods for achieving the goals seemed to emerge at every level. To those directly involve in program implementation, communication breakdowns between administrators, teachers, students and parents made executing the implementation of some sustainability and procurement initiatives challenging. For those programmes that were implemented, the poor communication and understanding seemed to inhibit the programmes from being as effective as they could be. In the spirit of sense-making, it might be surprising that programme successes occur at all, and to the extent success is possible, it is because assigned employees figure out solutions and work beyond organizational and resource constraints.

Even as the interviewees sought to implement the programme to the best of their capacity, it was evident that the Sustainable Jersey for Schools set a high standard for achievement, but without significant and needed attention to the concerns of implementation. By now, barriers to sustainability measures are well known. The barriers mentioned by the interviewees are not new, but they must be addressed if the programme is to move forward and achieve success. The issue is multi-faceted: problem definition, incentivization of effort in the interest of achieving successful resolution of the programme, and resourcing of the effort. The grants offered by the programme could be described as start-up funding, necessitating identification of additional partners for successful implementation.³ The longevity of resultant initiatives is thus suspect, because without funding, even valuable activities can die. There is a need here to face up to the idea that not everyone apparently agrees with the problem definition; this is obvious enough through the thickness of discussion that centred on priorities and achieving buy-in. If everyone agreed in the validity and value of the initiative, and all were willing to appropriately fund it, it would achieve its goals. As it is, staff members assigned are like islands of idealism in a stormy sea of fiscal pressures and the need to show performance, putting readily demonstrated outputs above outcomes.

Discussion

The newness of GPP in schools means it will need to go through many revisions and alterations for it to be highly effective. Identifying problems and factors that inhibit successful procurement programmes can help with developing better methods for carrying out these programmes. The results of this study identify several themes for problems associated with GPP and sustainability efforts in schools. In this study, there is a lack of training of school officials in the area of GPP. This may mean that there is little education on this topic in graduate programmes, which would be an appropriate place for training to occur. Furthermore, it means there is little direction from local and national education departments to implement effective GPP initiatives that can have a meaningful impact. Most probably, GPP is considered ‘nice to have’ among issues and supported by assignment to staff already tasked with procurement. This thinking is flawed, because expertise in green procurement is different than purchasing and acquisitions in the traditional sense.

Getting stakeholders to buy in to GPP programmes can be challenging. Some people do not see the value of these programmes, while others may not even know these programmes exist. Successful implementation of GPP and sustainability programmes requires full commitment from stakeholders where everyone is on board. The results of this study confirm frustration on the part of those committed to these programmes with the lack of buy-in of key members of the school community. Inconsistency of commitment on the part of administrators and teachers left the participants of this study discouraged and isolated. While they maintained their commitment to these GPP initiatives, there was still a general feeling that made them question how successful they could be without everyone on board.

Conclusion

Schools and school boards that have a more expansive view of the impact of school spending, and choose to implement rules for economic, social, or environmental ends, must clearly communicate their choices; in an operating framework where public trust is frequently undermined, and accountability and transparency are elusive, decision and rationale must be documented. There is a chance that identification and reporting of outputs can be made the priority, over the potential for outcomes that serve the environment. This can be seen as deceptive, because the alignment with environmental quality standards exists only to the extent that it already existed, in seeking after ‘done but not documented’ achievement of standards, and little attention paid to the potential for improvements and enhancements, even given additional cost.

Implementing sustainability and GPP programmes in schools is not an easy task. The development of meaningful programmes takes time, money and stakeholder buy-in. In the wake of so many other more pressing issues that need immediate attention, GPP and sustainability programmes often get pushed to the side. The urgency of other issues often leaves GPP initiatives off the docket because these initiatives are seen as more long-term goals, so they are less of a priority. The financial return of GPP and sustainability programmes is often realized in years rather than immediately and this makes the implementation of them less enticing.

Despite these challenges, it is readily apparent from the Sustainable Jersey for Schools website that many districts remain committed, at least on a normative level, to GPP and sustainability programmes. While a district may start with a small programme, once it becomes established, it can be used as a foundation upon which to build. The problem is that the programme adoption starts with mistaken assumptions if one hopes for real change: no resources are required, and no significant changes to how the organization works will be needed. Implementing GPP and sustainability programmes often has a slow beginning but could gain momentum given financial resources and stakeholder buy-in. The question then becomes how these conditions can be created to aid in the growth of these programmes. How does the certification agency spend its money? Is it in grants or in administrative overhead? Is the programme rhetoric and announcement-driven, suggesting the primacy of symbolism, or mission-driven, lean, and student-focused?

Training programmes and education can significantly impact stakeholders’ understanding of these programmes. Clear roadmaps of how to implement these programmes can give stakeholders the tools to implement meaningful programmes, but the variability of demands between districts makes generic plans ineffective. Therefore, districts could look to customize these plans to implement GPP and sustainability programmes while still addressing the other demands upon them.

Responsible, sustainable organizational decision-making requires understanding of potentially higher costs with a pay-off that may not be evident over the short-term. Paying for a future with a healthy environment is buying a credence good. Some decision-makers may understand the concept generally, but actually paying for the product, through a willingness to accept organizational constraint to achieve broader benefits, is another story entirely. Sustainability certification programmes and GPP programmes that assume no need of change or resource support undermine implementation efforts and the potential for success. The success of such certification schemes, though, does at least suggest that there is profit to be had in allaying fears and in selling hope. When the known result is that most participants in a programme merely obtain passing scores for low-hanging administrative fruit—activities that the organization is already doing—then there is no real accomplishment. Instead, this might approximate a commodification of greenwashing, and the awareness that results, even if positive, are too small to effect significant change in matters such as climate change. The most one can hope is that any resulting education sparks the creativity and ingenuity of tomorrow’s leaders, who may be more apt to make the tough choices necessary to respond positively to environmental challenges.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Berrone

, Fosfuri

, & Gelabert

(2017). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 363–379.

Cerutti

A. K.

, Contu

, Ardente

, Donno

, & Beccaro

G. L.

(2016). Carbon footprint in GPP: Policy evaluation from a case study in the food sector. Food Policy, 58, 82–93.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Poth

C. N.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

deJong

M. D. T.

, Huluba

, & Beldad

A. D.

(2020). Different shades of greenwashing: Consumers’ reactions to environmental lies, half-lifes, and organizations taking credit for following legal obligations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(1), 38–76.

Delmas

M. A.

, & Burbano

V. C.

(2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87.

Eikelboom

M. E.

, Gelderman

, & Semeijn

(2018). Sustainable innovation in public procurement: The decisive role of the individual. Journal of Public Procurement, 18(3), 190–201.

European Commission (2019). EU GPP criteria. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_gpp_criteria_en.htm.

10.

Fuentes-Bargues

J. L.

, Ferrer-Gisbert

P. S.

, & Gonzelz-Cruz

M. C.

(2018). Analysis of green public procurement of works by Spanish public universities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1–20.

11.

Hurtado

K. C.

, Smithwick

J. B.

, Pesek

A. E.

, & Sullivan

K. T.

(2018). Public school facility underfunding: A new tool to maximize construction dollars and improve performance outcomes. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 14(3), 218–231.

12.

Igarashi

, de Boer

, & Michelsen

(2015). Investigation the anatomy of supplier selection in GPP. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 442–450.

13.

Igarashi

, de Boer

, & Pfuhl

(2017). Analyzing buyer behavior when selecting green criteria in public procurement. Journal of Public Procurement, 17(2), 141–186.

14.

Khoshbakht

, Gou

, & Dupre

(2017). Cost-benefit prediction of green buildings: SWOT analysis of research methods and recent applications. Procedia Engineering, 180, 167–178.

15.

Kim

, & Ryu

(2017). Strategic public management for financial condition: Focus on fund balances of school districts. Social Science Journal, 54(3), 249–260.

16.

Koltun

(2010). Materials and sustainable development. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International, 20(1), 16–29.

17.

Lee

H. C. B.

, Cruz

J. M.

, & Shankar

(2018). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues in supply chain competition: Should greenwashing be regulated? Decision Sciences, 49(6), 1088–1115.

18.

Lundberg

, & Marklund

P. O.

(2018). GPP and multiple environmental objectives. Economia e Politica Industriale, 45(1), 37–53.

19.

Majernik

, Daneshjo

, Chovancova

, & Sanciova

(2017). Modelling the process of GPP. TEM Journal, 6(2), 272–278.

20.

Miles

M. B.

, Huberman

A. M.

, & Saldaña

(2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

21.

Mphela

, & Shunda

J. P. W.

(2018). Can small, medium and micro enterprises survive in public procurement? Lessons from Botswana. Journal of Public Procurement, 18(2), 90–110.

22.

Pacheco-Blanco

, & Bastante-Ceca

M. J.

(2016). GPP as an initiative for sustainable consumption. An exploratory study of Spanish public universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 648–656.

23.

Rainville

(2017). Standards in GPP: A framework to enhance Innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1029–1037.

24.

Saldaña

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

25.

Schmuck

, Matthes

, & Naderer

(2018). Misleading consumers with green advertising? An affect–reason–involvement account of greenwashing effects in environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 47(2), 127–145.

26.

Seele

, & Gatti

(2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239–252.

27.

Sparrevik

, Wangen

H. F.

, Fet

A. M.

, & De Boer

(2018). GPP: A case study of an innovative building project in Norway. Journal of Clean Production, 188(1), 879–887.

28.

Strauss

, Lepoutre

, & Wood

(2017). Fifty shades of green: How microfoundations of sustainability dynamic capabilities vary across organizational contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1338–1355.

29.

Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020a). Certification overview. www.sustainablejerseyschools.com/actions-certification/certification-overview/.

30.

Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020b). Program benefits. http://www.sustainablejerseyschools.com/actions-certification/program-benefits/.

31.

Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020c). Resolution to participate in Sustainable Jersey for Schools [sample]. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablejerseyschools.com/fileadmin/media/Actions_and_Certification/Register/Resolution_to_Participate_in_Sustainable_Jersey_for_Schools__1_.docx.

32.

Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020d). Sustainable Jersey for Schools Actions. Retrieved from http://www.sustainablejerseyschools.com/actions-certification/actions/.

33.

Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020e). Media & communications. Retrieved from www.sustainablejerseyschools.com/media-communications/.

34.

Sustainable Jersey for Schools (2020f). Participating districts and schools. Retrieved from www.sustainablejerseyschools.com/actions-certification/participating-districts-and-schools/.

35.

Terman

, & Smith

(2018). Putting your money where your mouth is: Green procurement as a form of sustainability. Journal of Public Procurement, 18(3), 202–216.

36.

Testa

, Annunziata

, Iraldo

, & Frey

(2016). Drawbacks and opportunities of green public procurement: An effective tool for sustainable production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1893–1900.

37.

Testa

, Boiral

, & Iraldo

(2018). Internalization of environmental practices and institutional complexity: Can stakeholders pressures encourage greenwashing? Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 287–307.

38.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013). Sustainable public procurement: A global review, final report. Author. https://globalecolabelling.net/assets/Documents/unep-spp-report.pdf.

39.

Yakovlek

, Balaeva

, & Tkachenko

(2018). Estimation of procurement costs incurred by public customers: A case study of a Russian region. Journal of Public Procurement, 18(1), 68–87.

40.

Young

, Davis

, McNeill

I. M.

, Malhotra

, Russell

, . (2013). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 689–703.