Public Procurement of Innovation: Selection of the Sustainable Alternative

Open access


The European Union has been highly emphasising the role of public procurement for innovation as a policy instrument that can be used to stimulate sustainable development. This development reflects and responds to improvements in social welfare, growth of entrepreneurship and of national competitive advantage. In the process of selection, the awarding tender public procurement institutions lack an overall approach for choosing the most advantageous and sustainable innovation alternative. To contribute purchasing of innovative solutions, the present paper elaborates a framework of innovation measurement and quality evaluation. Thus, it makes possible to assess proposals from different aspects and to choose the most valuable offer notwithstanding the lowest price criteria.

The paper studies the concept of public procurement, its pitfalls and prospects, dimensions of innovation definition and innovation added value assessment. The authors conducted expert interviews, which were analysed using an AHP method in order to set the most appropriate evaluation criteria indicator. The authors also designed the framework for assessing the quantitative and qualitative value of innovation proposals. The proposed approach is based on the analysis of innovation quality, added value, its potential impact and the sustainability of changes it produces.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abou-Zeid E. (2004). The effectiveness of innovation: a knowledge management approach. International Journal of Innovation Management 8(3) 261–274.

  • Ahuja G. & Lampert C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in large corporations: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal 22(6-7) 521–543.

  • Alcaide-Marzal J. & Tortajada-Esparza E. (2007). Innovation assessment in traditional industries. A proposal of aesthetic innovation indicators Scientometrics 72(1) 33–57.

  • Astebro T. & Michela J. L. (2005). Predictors of the survival of innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(4) 322–335.

  • Bossel H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: theory method applications; a report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development 1–12.

  • Brentani U. (2001). Innovative versus incremental new business services: Different keys for achieving success. Journal of Product Innovation Management18(3) 169–187.

  • Cambridge Dictionary. (2018). Evaluation definition. Retrieved from

  • Chatzoglou P. & Chatzoudes D. (2018). The role of innovation in building competitive advantages: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Innovation Management 21(1) 44–69.

  • Chesbrough H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Cooper R. G. & Kleinschmidt E. J. (1987). Success factors in product innovation Industrial Marketing Management 16(3) 215–223.

  • Cottam A. Ensor J. & Band C. (2001). A benchmark study of strategic commitment to innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 4(2) 88–94.

  • Cox A. & Furlong P. (1995). Utilities contracting and the EU procurement rules: National contract awards behaviour under the EU directives. Utilities Policy 5(3–4) 199–206.

  • Cumming B. S. (1998). Innovation overview and future challenges. European Journal of Innovation Management 1(1) 21–29.

  • De Felice F. & Petrillo A. (2013). Key success factors for organizational innovation in the fashion industry. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 5 1–11.

  • Drucker P. F. (1954). The Practice of Management. UK: Harper Business.

  • Drucker P. F. (1985). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review 63 67–72.

  • Edison H. bin Ali N. & Torkar R. (2013). Towards innovation measurement in the software industry. Journal of Systems and Software 86(5) 1390–1407.

  • European commission. (2018). Procurement Scoreboard. Retrieved from

  • European commission. (2019). Procurement factsheet. Retrieved from

  • European Parliament. (2014). Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement. Retrieved from

  • Fern W. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 254–273.

  • Garcia R. & Calantone R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. The journal of Product innovation management 19(2) 110–132.

  • Georghiou L. et al. (2014). Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice design and assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 86 1–12.

  • Griffin A. & Page A. L. (1993). An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management 10(4) 291–308.

  • Hamberg D. (1959). Production Functions Innovations and Economic Growth. Journal of Political Economy 67 238–245.

  • Harris D. & Harris F. (2004). Evaluating the Transfer of Technology between Application Domains: A Critical Evaluation of the Human Component in the System. Technology in Society 26(4) 551–565.

  • Hennicke P. & Khosta A. (2014). Decoupling Economic growth from resource consumption. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.

  • Highsmith J. (2009). Agile Project Management 2nd ed. UK: Addison-Wesley Professional.

  • Hittmar S. Varmus M. & Lendel V. (2015). Proposal of Evaluation System for Successful Application of Innovation Strategy through a Set of Indicators. Procedia Economics and Finance 26 17–22.

  • Hudson J. & Kühner S. (2013). Qualitative Comparative Analysis And Applied Public Policy Analysis: New Applications Of Innovative Methods. Policy And Society32(4) 279–287.

  • Jasinki A. H. (2006). Barriers for technology transfer: the case of a country in transition. Journal of Technology Management in China 4(2) 119–131.

  • Kahneman D. Knetsch J. & Thaler R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests Of The Endowment Effect And The Coase Theorem. Journal Of Political Economy 98 325–348.

  • Kobayashi H. (2006). A systematic approach to eco-innovative product design based on life cycle planning. Advanced Engineering Informatics 20(2) 113–125.

  • Kunzlik P. (2013). Neoliberalism and the European Public Procurement Regime. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 15 283–356.

  • Lember V. Kattel R. & Kalvet T. eds. (2014). Public Procurement Innovation and Policy. International perspectives. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

  • Luz L. M. de Francisco A. C. & Piekarski C. M. (2015). Proposed model for assessing the contribution of the indicators obtained from the analysis of life-cycle inventory to the generation of industry innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 96 339–348.

  • Mitasiunas J. (2013). Innovation and Technology Transfer Jonas. Retrieved from

  • Osterwalder A. (2014). Value Proposition Design. Retrieved from

  • Porter M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. NY: The Free Pres. 557 p.

  • Rochford L. (1991). Generating and screening new products ideas. Industrial Marketing Management 20(4) 287–296.

  • Rolfstam M. (2009). Public procurement as an innovation policy tool: the role of institutions. Science and Public Policy 36(5) 349–360.

  • Rolfstam M. (2012). Understanding Public Procurement of Innovation: Definitions Innovation Types and Interaction Modes. SSRN Electronic Journal 1–16.

  • Saaty R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling 9(3-5) 161–176.

  • Saaty T. & Vargas L. G. (2012). Models Methods Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Operations Research & Management Science book series 175 13–54.

  • Sawang Sukanlaya. (2011). Key performance indicators for innovation implementation: Perception vs. actual usage. Asia Pacific Management Review 16 23–29.

  • Schumpeter J. (1942). Capitalism Socialism and Democracy. USA: Harper & Brothers.

  • Schumpeter J. (1983). The theory of Economic Development. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

  • Silva G. & Di Serio L. C. (2016). The sixth wave of innovation: are we ready? RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação 13(2) 128–134.

  • Stark J. (2011). Product Lifecycle Management 2nd ed. Springer.

  • Story V. Smith G. & Saker J. (2001). Developing Appropriate Measures of Success and Failure in New Product Development: A Contingency Approach. International Journal of Innovation Management5(1) 21–47.

  • Tipping P. (1995). Foaming in Activated-Sludge Processes: An Operator’s Overview. Water and Environment Journal 9(3) 281–289.

  • Ultrich K. (2008). Product design and development. UK: McGraw-Hil International Edition.

  • United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). Decoupling 2 Technologies Opportunities and Policy Options. Retrieved from

  • Van Hoof G. et. al. (2014). Assessment of progressive product innovation on key environmental indicators: Pampers® Baby Wipes from 2007–2013. Sustainability 6(8) 5129–5142.

  • Wickson F. & Carew A. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(3) 254–273.

  • Woodward D. (1997). Life Cycle Costing – Theory Information Acquisition and Application. International Journal of Project Management 15(6) 335–344.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 36 36 12
PDF Downloads 54 54 15