Sustainable Public Procurement and Human Rights: Barriers to Deliver on Socially Sustainable Road Infrastructure Projects in Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The issue is complex but it has been well addressed.

The main question addressed by the publication is the achievement of respect for human rights through responsible public procurement
the topic is of high interest and interesting
it is an original subject although little studied in some states of the european union
it is a clear and easy-to-read text.
Yes it seemed well argued and the arguments used to reach the main conclusion of the work are consistent
As an improvement I would suggest you include the general theory of some of the general institutions that have not been described

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Another proof-read review was undertaken in this version. Could you please further clarify suggestion to "include the general theory of some of the general institutions that have not been described"? Best, Laura 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is not clear, as it deals with either the SPP or the human rights aspect of the social issue. There is a confusion of purpose, which is also characteristic of what is said in the essay. The literature presented is incomplete, practically not exploring the SPP part of the public procurement literature at all (e.g. McCrudden). The methodology used is poor, consisting of 8 interviews, the message of which is possibly fragmented. The identified 5 SPP barriers suddenly becomes 6, overall the article is not well thought through and its message is not sufficiently supported. 

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments. The key aim of the article is not to explore the sustainable aspect of procurement, but the drivers to deliver on the social dimension of sustainable public procurement of infrastructure. Lines 119-129 clearly establish the research question to be addressed is "What are the key barriers of socially sustainable road infrastructure projects developed by businesses contracted by the State in Mexico? The article answers comprehensively this question by finding six barriers of socially sustainable infrastructure, which were present in case study Paso Express (a socially unsustainable project) and absent (except for two) in case study Necaxa (a socially sustainable project). The findings on one and the other make a clear case on the influence that such barriers had in road infrastructure projects' social results.

McCrudden was included within the bibliography.

The a qualitative research methodology like the one used is best to understand why of things. In this case the article aims to understand why one project was socially sustainable and why the other wasn't. By evidencing that barriers were present in a socially unsustainable project and were absent in the other provide empirical and compelling evidence on their impact within projects. Acknowledgment of limitations of the used research methods was included in lines 112-118.

Precisely the fact that the article finds a sixth barrier to the 5 that have been already identified by literature turns it to be an important contribution. Literature scholars have only identified 5 key barriers to sustainable infrastructure. Yet, in the Mexican context this article discovers a 6th barrier (financial risks for private developers) that in both case studies has a considerable impact to allow or block socially sustainable outcomes. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

From the described facts it follows that the Necaxa project was much better managed than the Paso Expres project, but the author emphasizes Necaxa against Paso Expres too much, which unnecessarily reduces the credibility of the conclusions.

For example, in Paso Expres the numbers of car accidents are also calculated, while in Necax the author only states that accidents of workers were identified…

In describing the benefits of these projects, the author again describes much at Nacoxo but almost none at Paso Expres. The extension of an existing road can in principle no longer achieve some positive effects, such as the new connection between the two cities and the reduction of travel time is mentioned only on Necaxa road, while the extension of the existing motorway will certainly speed up traffic and reduce emissions too.

The work sometimes compares incomparable data, for example the original price of projects (253) cannot be compared without taking into account inflation, wage averages in individual areas,…

I therefore see the main problem of the work in the imbalance in the evaluation of both cases. The work would be very helpful if both projects were evaluated more comparably and the author used a comparable level of detail.

107-111 The author could better specify which experts were involved, as some issues, especially concerning corruption, will not be publicly known. Therefore, it would be appropriate to at least indicate whether they were persons directly involved in the negotiation of the contract (they have inside information) or they are external experts (based on information made available to the public).

252 Necaxa involved more than twice of kilometers in construction than Paso

The article combines two types of citations, it would be appropriate to unify them. E.g. 137-139 and 145

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments.

The article is not focused on finding what were the social results of each project, but rather what were the drivers that led to those results. In that view, the project's overview takes for granted that Necaxa was a sustainable project due to the award it received by the IDB, and that Paso Express wasn't a sustainable project because the National Human Rights institution issued a recommendation for several human rights abuses derived from its construction and operation. The article does not questions or researches on whether those determinations were correct or accurate at all. The overview is given just to put the reader into context into what were the general results socially speaking of each case. 

It would be impossible to find two road projects in the field that have the exact same conditions. The reviewer is right by saying there are factors that are not the same (not constructed in the exact same local communities or dates, not used the same materials, didn't participate the same enterprises or public procurement practitioners, not the same design...), yet these projects have similarities in fundamental aspects (the procuring institution, total investment (in their respective years), type of infrastructure, country geographic location and businesses nationality and number of enterprises). These shared features between both cases still make them comparable, particularly regarding barriers within the procurement process that are related to structural and general aspects (eg. corruption, political context, awareness, policies and laws...) 

Regarding comments about incomparable data, argument in comparable economic costs was modified. 254-257

Interviewees description was amended in 109-111. It was specified which experts were involved, most of them had knowledge from inside involved stakeholders (government, businesses) or had access to documents and information that were not public. 

Citation was amended and unified. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

An interesting, well-researched and well-written paper. 

Author Response

Another proofread was undertaken. Please find new version attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx