Expressions of managerialism and post-managerialism in sustainable public procurement in the Brazilian Federal Public Administration

Expressões do gerencialismo e do pós-gerencialismo nas compras públicas sustentáveis na Administração Pública Federal Brasileira

Abstract

Abstract  This study examines sustainable public procurement (SPP) in the context of Brazilian public administration, mapping the presence of elements of managerial and post-managerial models in the institutional instruments related to the implementation process. Grounded in the theoretical frameworks of these paradigms, the research adopts a qualitative documentary approach, analyzing institutional sources related to management, legal advisory functions, and internal, external, and societal oversight. The findings reveal both normative and operational advances, yet also highlight asymmetries and weaknesses in coordination among public actors. The study contributes to advancing both theoretical and practical understanding of SPP by highlighting the articulation between these practices and the managerial and post-managerial models of Brazilian public administration. This approach helps bridge a gap identified in the literature by framing SPP as a complex and multidimensional public policy, situated at the intersection of distinct administrative rationalities. Finally, the research highlights the development of an analytical matrix for SPP management, which enables the assessment of the consolidation of operational guidelines across various dimensions of public administration, offering valuable input for institutional diagnostics, policy formulation, and the enhancement of sustainable public governance.

Keywords:
Sustainable public procurement; Managerialism; Post-managerialism; Public administration; Sustainability

Resumo

Resumo  Este estudo analisa as compras públicas sustentáveis (CPS) no contexto da gestão pública brasileira, mapeando a presença de elementos dos modelos gerencial e pós-gerencial nos instrumentos institucionais relacionados ao processo de implementação. Fundamentada nas abordagens teóricas desses paradigmas, a pesquisa adota uma metodologia qualitativa documental, com base na análise de fontes institucionais vinculadas à gestão, à consultoria jurídica e aos controles internos, externos e sociais. Os resultados evidenciam avanços normativos e operacionais, mas também revelam assimetrias e fragilidades na articulação entre os atores públicos. O estudo contribui para o avanço da compreensão teórica e prática das CPS ao evidenciar a articulação entre essas práticas e os modelos gerencial e pós-gerencial da administração pública brasileira. Essa abordagem contribui para reduzir uma lacuna identificada na literatura, ao tratar as CPS como política pública complexa e multidimensional, situada na interseção entre racionalidades administrativas distintas. Por fim, destaca-se a elaboração de uma matriz analítica da gestão das CPS, que permite avaliar a consolidação de diretrizes operacionais em diferentes dimensões da administração pública, oferecendo subsídios para diagnóstico institucional, formulação de políticas e aprimoramento da governança pública sustentável.

Palavras-chave:
Compras públicas sustentáveis; Gerencialismo; Pós-gerencialismo; Gestão pública; Sustentabilidade

1 Introduction

Contemporary public administration plays a strategic role in promoting sustainable development, particularly through its procurement decisions, which have the potential to shape production and consumption patterns (Brammer & Walker, 2011). In Brazil, public procurement accounted for approximately BRL 600 billion in 2024, representing around 12% of Gross Domestic Product (Brasil, 2025b), thereby granting the State a unique capacity to influence socio-environmental practices in the marketplace.

Sustainable public procurement (SPP) refers to the acquisition of goods and the contracting of services by the public sector in a manner that systematically incorporates environmental, social, and economic criteria throughout the entire procurement process (from planning to contract execution) with the aim of generating public value and reducing negative impacts on the environment and society (Biderman et al., 2008; UNEP, 2021). In this context, SPP emerges as a public policy instrument capable of embedding these criteria into governmental procurement processes. However, its implementation varies significantly across countries, organizations, and projects, due to institutional and managerial factors (Grandia et al., 2015; Grandia & Voncken, 2019). In Brazil, the operationalization of SPP requires interaction among legal frameworks, administrative capacities, and supplier market responses, within an interdependent and multidimensional logic (Freitas & Villac, 2020).

The adoption of SPP occurs in a context characterized by the coexistence of administrative paradigms. Since 1995, following the State Reform, elements associated with managerialism have been progressively introduced in Brazil, particularly in terms of efficiency, performance control, and resource rationalization (Bresser-Pereira, 1996; Paula, 2005). Although managerialism has contributed to administrative modernization, it poses challenges to incorporating socio-environmental criteria, which do not always align with traditional performance metrics. In response to these limitations, post-managerial approaches have gained prominence, emphasizing citizen participation, transparency, and the creation of public value (Denhardt, 2012; Secchi, 2009; Batista et al., 2025).

Despite the growing federal regulatory framework for SPP, particularly following the enactment of the New Public Procurement and Contracts Law (Law No. 14,133/2021), the academic literature identifies relevant gaps. Studies point to obstacles related to institutional capacity, the training of public agents, and the lack of robust indicators for measuring the effectiveness of SPP (Jereissati & Melo, 2020; Silva & Cohen, 2023). Evidence from a study conducted in a Brazilian federal institution reinforces this diagnosis, showing that SPP advances when sustainability shifts from an abstract guideline to a principle that transparently informs what is measured and monitored in institutional routines (Vieira et al., 2020).

Empirical studies involving public agents engaged in government procurement indicate that, although there is a moderate level of individual commitment to SPP, organizational and political commitment remain significantly lower (Inglat et al., 2024). According to these agents, factors such as technical training, resource availability, monitoring, and oversight are important for strengthening commitment to SPP (Cabral et al., 2025).

These findings underscore the need to consolidate administrative structures aligned with sustainability principles. Furthermore, the existing literature reveals a scarcity of studies integrating SPP with managerial and post-managerial models, particularly in the context of the Brazilian Federal Public Administration.

Against this background, this article aims to analyze SPP from the perspective of public management in Brazil, addressing the following research question: How do elements of managerialism and post-managerialism manifest in the institutional instruments governing the implementation of SPP within the Brazilian Federal Public Administration?

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Brazilian public management: managerialism and post-managerialism

Since the 1990s, Brazil has undergone a process of administrative restructuring marked by a set of reforms inspired by principles associated with managerial public administration, also referred to as New Public Management (NPM), formally structured through the Master Plan for the Reform of the State Apparatus, launched in 1995 during the administration of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Campelo, 2010). This reform sought, among other objectives, to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and quality in the management of public resources by incorporating elements and practices derived from the private sector, such as performance-based management, accountability, and administrative decentralization (Bresser-Pereira, 1996; Secchi, 2009).

The managerial model draws on international experience, particularly that of the governments of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States (Hood, 1991; Paula, 2005; Bresser-Pereira, 1996, 2008). Although it influenced the reform agenda in Brazil, its implementation was partial and coexisted with elements of bureaucratic administration, materialized through the adoption of instruments such as performance targets, indicators, and results-oriented evaluation mechanisms, alongside innovations such as social organizations and the professionalization of the civil service (Bresser-Pereira, 1996; Secchi, 2009; Campelo, 2010).

Managerial rationality introduced a stronger emphasis on cost–benefit analysis and efficiency in administrative processes (Bresser-Pereira, 1996), promoting the optimization of public resource allocation, focusing on reducing waste and maximizing outcomes (Klering et al., 2010). As a result, the model encouraged innovation, process reengineering, and administrative modernization, aiming to increase policy effectiveness and improve citizens’ quality of life (Campelo, 2010). Within this perspective, citizens came to be conceived as “clients” of public administration, implying shifts in responsiveness and service delivery.

The transition to managerialism was neither immediate nor homogeneous. Structural and cultural transformations required time to consolidate within institutional practices and collective imaginaries, coexisting with continuities from bureaucratic and patrimonialist models (Pereira, 2017). Rather than representing a complete rupture, this shift reflects a cumulative process of change in practices and values, unevenly manifested across organizations, hierarchical levels, and regions (Secchi, 2009; Vipievski & Tomporoski, 2023).

Despite these advances, the implementation of managerial elements in Brazilian public administration has revealed structural challenges. Among them are the prioritization of administrative efficiency over citizen participation (Paula, 2005), the deterioration in the quality of public services associated with fiscal constraints (Drumond et al., 2014), and critiques regarding the privatization of essential services and its potential impact on social inequality (Paula, 2005).

In response to these limitations, post-managerial approaches have emerged, seeking to overcome the shortcomings of classical managerialism by emphasizing citizen participation, transparency, and public accountability, thus giving rise to post-managerialism (Pereira, 2017; Silveira, 2022). This approach does not represent a complete break with managerial principles but rather a reconfiguration that incorporates lessons learned from previous reforms (Drumond et al., 2014; Silvestre, 2019; Batista et al., 2025).

The various conceptualizations associated with post-managerialism reflect the diversity of initiatives aimed at administrative restructuring. These include social management (Tenório, 1998, 2005; Dowbor, 2001), or societal administration (Paula, 2005), positioned between managerialism and more democratic collaborative arrangements; the New Public Service (Denhardt, 2012), which emphasizes democratic values, citizen engagement, and commitment to the public interest; and public governance (Secchi, 2009; Smith, 2010), which shifts the focus from hierarchical administration to collaborative processes involving the state, civil society, and the private sector. Governance presupposes plural decision-making and redefines the role of the state as less hierarchical and more distributed, prioritizing social deliberation over purely technical rationality (Secchi, 2009). Within the post-managerial logic, citizens are regarded as “partners” in public administration (Batista et al., 2025).

From the early 2000s onward, some scholars have argued that Brazil has followed a trajectory in which post-managerial elements have gained increasing relevance, particularly through the expansion of social policies and the strengthening of participatory mechanisms in decision-making processes (Sátiro, 2012). Programs aimed at modernizing management and strengthening external oversight have emerged, focusing primarily on administrative transparency, while these initiatives do not imply the abandonment of managerial practices, they signal the emergence of new dimensions of public governance (Silveira, 2022).

Although post-managerialism remains under construction and subject to criticism regarding its applicability (Silveira, 2022), its development reflects the dialectical and incremental trajectory of Brazilian public management. Thus, managerial assumptions of efficiency and control coexist with post-managerial demands for participation, equity, and social legitimacy, without any single model fully capturing the complexity of public administration in Brazil (Secchi, 2009; Batista et al., 2025).

In this context, strategic areas such as sustainable public procurement exemplify the challenge of articulating distinct rationalities, combining administrative efficiency with contemporary socio-environmental imperatives, and requiring not only technical capacity but also strategic direction and appropriate institutional arrangements (Nonato, 2022).

2.2 Sustainable public procurement (SPP): concepts and regulatory framework

At the conceptual level, the terminology associated with sustainable public procurement requires a systemic approach encompassing various expressions, such as “green procurement”, “sustainable public contracting”, “eco-efficient procurement”, and “responsible purchasing” (Cavalcanti et al., 2017). These terms generally refer to the same phenomenon: the integrated incorporation of sustainable development principles (environmental, social, and economic) throughout the entire process of acquiring goods, contracting services, and executing public works.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2021), SPP is a process through which public sector organizations meet their needs for goods, services, works, and utilities in a way that delivers value over the entire life cycle, benefiting the organization, society, and the economy, while minimizing or avoiding environmental impacts. This perspective is reinforced by the European Commission (EC, 2008), which defines SPP as a process whereby public authorities seek to balance the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development across all stages of procurement.

In the Brazilian context, SPP is described as an approach that incorporates environmental and social considerations into all stages of the public procurement process, aiming to mitigate negative impacts on human health, the environment, and human rights (Biderman et al., 2008), thus conferring a preventive and comprehensive character to this public policy.

From a regulatory standpoint, the enactment of the New Public Procurement and Contracts Law (Law No. 14,133/2021), which became mandatory in 2024, consolidated advances previously developed through earlier initiatives. This legislation explicitly includes sustainable national development as a guiding principle of public procurement, requiring the incorporation of sustainability criteria into purchasing and contracting processes (Brasil, 2024d). Although the law is fully in force, certain provisions allow adaptation periods for municipalities with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants, indicating a transition process rather than uniform implementation across the Brazilian public administration. As such, it represents a paradigm shift, assigning a normative and institutional role to public procurement in promoting sustainability.

In this context, SPP constitutes a cross-cutting public policy that integrates with other governmental initiatives, such as the Environmental Agenda in Public Administration (A3P) and Sustainable Logistics Plans (PLS), which serve as strategic planning instruments for incorporating socio-environmental criteria into administrative and procurement practices (Rodrigues, 2019).

The systemic nature of SPP is evidenced by its coverage of all stages of public procurement, adopting an integrated and intersectoral approach. In this regard, Jereissati & Melo (2020) highlight that state action, particularly through its purchasing power, has significant potential to promote sustainable production and consumption. Similarly, Brammer & Walker (2011) argue that public administration can act as a catalyst by encouraging the private sector to provide sustainable goods and services. This influence extends beyond merely meeting governmental demand, contributing to collective well-being and generating positive social and environmental impacts (Jereissati & Melo, 2020).

The literature on SPP at the federal level in Brazil indicates that, despite the existence of a regulatory framework supporting its adoption, implementation still faces systematic challenges identified by empirical studies, such as insufficient training of public agents, the absence of clear sustainability indicators, and organizational barriers that hinder the integration of sustainability criteria into procurement procedures (Inglat & Guerrieri, 2025).

Thus, a broader understanding of SPP within the state apparatus enables an analysis of the interfaces between procurement processes and public management, revealing both synergies and tensions arising from the interplay between administrative efficiency and socio-environmental responsibility.

2.3 Interactions between public management and public procurement

The administrative reforms implemented in Brazil promoted a reconfiguration of institutional and administrative arrangements that influenced public procurement. In this respect, Nonato (2022) identifies four major phases: centralized procurement combined with bureaucratic rigidity (until 1967); political centralization alongside administrative fragmentation (1967–1993); an emphasis on control and efficiency (1993–2010); and a focus on socially relevant strategic sectors (after 2010). Particularly noteworthy is the transition toward the managerial model, in which the State assumes the role of contract manager (after 1993) and, more recently (since 2010), also acts as a driver of sustainable development.

As a result of these structural transformations, the evolution of the regulatory framework for public procurement, especially with the enactment of Law No. 8,666/1993 (then in force), sought to standardize procedures and mitigate corruption risks, although it also constrained the discretionary capacity of public managers in decision-making processes (Fernandes, 2008).

Within the managerial model, grounded in a positivist-instrumental epistemology, public procurement becomes a strategic function for achieving institutional goals and rationalizing public expenditure (Silveira, 2022). However, the application of this model in developing countries such as Brazil reveals significant limitations, including a reduction in the State’s normative role, the erosion of the ethical dimension of public management, and a tendency toward the depoliticization of decision-making (Paula, 2005; Denhardt, 2012). In response to these limitations, post-managerial theoretical approaches have emerged, repositioning the State as both a driver of social transformation (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000) and a promoter of sustainable and inclusive policies.

Within this new paradigm, SPP represents “a rupture in the traditional procurement, which focuses only on immediate result: buy something, considering lowest price, to a delimited aim, and there is not concern with external impacts of the bidding” (Freitas & Villac, 2020, p. 797, sic). Accordingly, the epistemological debate surrounding SPP requires an analytical perspective that transcends conventional administrative rationality, situating it within a broader framework of public management oriented toward the creation of public value across multiple dimensions, grounded in a substantive rationality that incorporates ethical and normative criteria into public decision-making, requiring not only instrumental adjustments but also cultural and institutional transformations (Santos, 2016).

In this context of transformation, particular attention is given to the adoption of life-cycle costing approaches, which consider economic and environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of the procured object. However, this approach poses significant technical and methodological challenges, particularly in developing economic analyses that capture real costs, including associated externalities (Moura, 2013; Souza, 2019; Silva & Cohen, 2023).

From a legal and administrative perspective within Brazilian public management, SPP, beyond its regulatory prominence in Law No. 14,133/2021, is aligned with Target 12.7 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which calls for the promotion of sustainable public procurement practices. Additionally, the integration of SPP into the environmental dimension of the Federal Strategy for Development (2020–2031), established by Decree No. 10,531/2020 (Brasil, 2020a), reinforces its strategic alignment with public management aimed at promoting sustainable national development.

In light of these considerations, there is a clear need to further deepen the debate on SPP and its empirical application within Brazilian public management. The following section presents the methodological procedures adopted in this study.

3 Methodology

This study is characterized as a qualitative documentary research, aiming to analyze sustainable public procurement from the perspective of public management in Brazil. The choice of documentary research is justified by its ability to reveal institutional practices, normative discourses, and empirical records that have been consolidated over time in official documents (Sá-Silva et al., 2009).

According to Minayo (2009), qualitative research focuses on the universe of meanings and social representations, making it particularly suitable for investigating complex and context-dependent phenomena. In the case of documentary research, this approach enables the analysis not only of explicit content but also of omissions and silences within documents, thereby revealing implicit dimensions (Evangelista, 2012) of governmental administrative practices.

The documentary corpus covers the period from 2014 to March 2025, with the Brazilian Federal Public Administration as the unit of analysis. Documents were selected from official websites based on their institutional or public function, as well as their purpose (Table 1), according to criteria of relevance, credibility, representativeness, and alignment with the research object (Cellard, 2008). This selection enabled a comprehensive and plural analysis of SPP implementation.

Table 1
Documentary corpus of the research.

Function (source)	Selected document	Purpose
Institutional Management (Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services - MGI)	Logistics Notebooks: Sustainable Logistics Plan (Brasil, 2024b); Market Research (Brasil, 2024a); Services – transportation (Brasil, 2014a), surveillance (Brasil, 2014b), and cleaning (Brasil, 2014c).	Systematizes operational guidelines to promote standardization for SPP implementation.
	Management Reports (Brasil, 2019b; Brasil, 2020c, 2021c, 2022a, 2023b; Brasil, 2024c, 2025a).	Demonstrates the integration of SPP into strategic planning, highlighting institutional outcomes
	Resolutions and minutes of the Interministerial Commission on Sustainable Public Procurement (Brasil, 2024e, f, g, h, i, j, k, 2025c).	Formalizes collective normative and deliberative decisions guiding the institutionalization of SPP.
Legal Advisory (Attorney General’s Office - AGU)	National Guides to Sustainable Public Procurement (Brasil, 2016, 2019a, 2020b, 2021a, 2022b, 2023a, 2024d).	Provides legal foundations and guidance to ensure compliance and legal certainty in SPP.
Internal Control (Brazilian Office of the Comptroller General - CGU)	Evaluation Report – Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023, Service Order No. 1573338 (Brasil, 2024n).	Identifies risks, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in SPP management.
External Oversight (Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts - TCU)	Booklet “Public Procurement and Contracts” (Brasil, 2024l).	Establishes parameters for compliance and transparency.
	Executive Summary – Sustainability in the Federal Public Administration (Audit TC 006.615/2016-3) (Brasil, 2017b); Ruling No. 1,056/2017 (audit results) (Brasil, 2017a); Ruling No. 3,254/2021 (audit monitoring) (Brasil, 2021b).	Provides a comprehensive diagnosis of sustainability in the Federal Administration, identifying normative advances, best practices, structural weaknesses, and recommending corrective and monitoring actions.
Societal Oversight (Civil Society Working Group for the 2030 Agenda – GTSC A2030)	Spotlight Reports (GTSC A2030, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024).	Presents independent and multidisciplinary assessments of SDG performance, including SPP.

The documentary analysis, as recommended by Cellard (2008), was structured in two stages: (i) a preliminary analysis, which examined the context of document production, authorship, authenticity and reliability, the nature of the text, key concepts, and internal logic; and (ii) the analytical phase itself, focused on extracting meaningful information and articulating it with the theoretical framework (Cellard, 2008; Cechinel et al., 2016). A detailed description of this analytical procedure is provided in the following section, dedicated to the analysis of results.

It is acknowledged that documentary research has limitations, including concerns about the representativeness of selected documents and the inability to interact directly with sources (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). To mitigate these limitations, the method requires a critical and reflexive stance from the researcher (Alves et al., 2021). In this perspective, the quality and validity of documentary research stem from the diversity and consistency of sources, interpretative coherence, and the ability to relate the data to the analytical context (Cellard, 2008; Lima et al., 2021).

Thus, the methodological rigor applied in the documentary analysis enables inferences about institutional values, intentions, and practices, providing valuable insights for the critical understanding of public policies and for the formulation of proposals aimed at their improvement (Lüdke & André, 1986; Sá-Silva et al., 2009).

4 Analysis and discussion of results

The documentary analysis was structured based on five dimensions of public management (organizational structure, results-based management, professionalization, technology and innovation in management, and responsibility and participation) each unfolded into specific operational guidelines. These analytical categories were derived from the literature by combining characteristics of managerialism (Hood, 1991; Bresser-Pereira, 1996; Campelo, 2010; Vipievski & Tomporoski, 2023) and post-managerialism (Dowbor, 2001; Tenório, 2005; Paula, 2005; Secchi, 2009; Smith, 2010; Denhardt, 2012).

These five dimensions serve as analytical axes that enable the interpretation of the simultaneous and, at times, tension-laden, manifestation of managerial and post-managerial rationalities in the institutionalization of SPP. Organizational structure refers to the set of operational arrangements and decision-making architectures that shape the capacity to implement and coordinate SPP, thereby articulating elements of administrative rationalization. Results-based management expresses the orientation of state action toward measurable objectives, monitoring mechanisms, and feedback processes, reflecting the performance logic characteristic of managerialism. Professionalization encompasses the institutional capacity base (training, competence development, employment arrangements, and working conditions), highlighting that technical qualifications and ethical dispositions are structural factors in SPP implementation. Technology and innovation in management include digitalization, system interoperability, and procedural reconfiguration, emphasizing how automation and standardization coexist with increasing transparency and responsiveness. Finally, responsibility and participation bring together mechanisms of transparency and societal engagement that confer legitimacy on institutional practices, situating SPP at the intersection of compliance requirements and deliberative processes.

These dimensions, directly derived from the theoretical framework, synthesize empirically observable categories from the analyzed documents, ensuring coherence between the conceptual framework and the adopted interpretive logic. However, this categorization is not intended to be exhaustive. Other dimensions and operational guidelines may also be relevant to the analysis of SPP but fall outside the scope defined by the methodological boundaries of this study.

Based on this categorization, a comparative synthesis of the documents was conducted, considering the roles performed by institutional management, legal advisory, internal control, external oversight, and societal oversight. This approach is grounded in the understanding that analytical dimensions materialize differently across these functions, given the diversity of roles, instruments, and rationalities they mobilize. Thus, the dimensions do not derive from institutional functions; rather, they guide the interpretation of sources, enabling the identification of how each function contributes, through distinct emphases, to the institutionalization of SPP.

4.1 Organizational structure

Organizational structure has shaped public procurement in Brazil predominantly according to a managerial logic. This dimension focuses on operational guidelines related to efficiency/effectiveness (rational use of resources and process optimization), process reengineering (procedural redesign and standardization), administrative decentralization (distribution of responsibilities and decision-making), and managerial autonomy (decision-making capacity with independence), understood as expressions of organizational design at the interface with administrative rationalization (Hood, 1991; Bresser-Pereira, 1996; Secchi, 2009).

Operational efficiency and effectiveness have been promoted by institutional management (Brasil, 2020c, 2021c, 2022a; Brasil, 2024c, 2025a), with emphasis on initiatives such as the centralization and digitization of bidding processes, through the creation of the Shared Services Center of the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services (ColaboraGov) and the National Public Procurement Portal (PNCP). These initiatives reflect the managerial logic of resource rationalization and administrative agility (Bresser-Pereira, 1996). The establishment of the Interministerial Commission on Sustainable Public Procurement (CICS) represents an institutional advancement by creating governance mechanisms to improve quality and efficiency in public procurement.

Within the legal advisory function, the National Guides to Sustainable Public Procurement, developed by the Attorney General’s Office (Brasil, 2016, 2019a, 2020b, 2022b, 2023a), have guided the reengineering of administrative processes by recommending the incorporation of environmental and social criteria from planning through contract supervision. This orientation aligns with the post-managerial model, particularly in its emphasis on broader collective values (Denhardt, 2012; Batista et al., 2025).

From an internal control perspective, the Evaluation Report of the Brazilian Office of the Comptroller General (Brasil, 2024n) highlights the need to revise structures and processes to incorporate sustainable practices. Similarly, external oversight, through the Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts (Brasil, 2024l), underscores the importance of ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in public procurement and recommends that senior management be held accountable for governance in these processes.

However, evidence from civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2017, 2018, 2021) suggests that the organizational structure supporting SPP remains fragile, particularly in consolidating administrative decentralization and managerial autonomy. Low adherence to the Environmental Agenda in Public Administration (A3P), which includes SPP as one of its axes (Rodrigues, 2019), indicates shortcomings in the distribution of responsibilities across organizational levels and units, thereby undermining implementation effectiveness. Although institutional management documents (Brasil, 2024c) refer to the creation of thematic committees and legal advisory guidelines (Brasil, 2016, 2019a, 2020b) require formal justification for the non-adoption of sustainability criteria, these measures have not been sufficient to ensure effective managerial autonomy. Post-managerial literature emphasizes the need for organizational reconfiguration based on flexibility, policy co-production, and interinstitutional articulation (Secchi, 2009; Tenório, 2005; Denhardt, 2012), suggesting that managerial autonomy must be accompanied by technical support and institutional responsibility.

4.2 Results-based management

Results-based management, as a dimension of managerialism, presupposes the definition of clear goals, the use of performance indicators, and the systematic evaluation of public administration. This dimension considers, as an analytical framework, the guidelines for defining goals (clear establishment and orientation), performance indicators (valid and comparable measurement), and results evaluation (impact and effectiveness analysis), as performance-oriented and decision-making feedback mechanisms aimed at translating efficiency into public value (Hood, 1991; Denhardt, 2012).

Goal-setting in SPP has been incorporated in an incipient manner into Sustainable Logistics Plans (PLS) and Annual Procurement Plans, as indicated in institutional management documents (Brasil, 2024b, c). Although these instruments allow for the definition of objectives and timelines, the documentary evidence shows that SPP-related goals are often generic, weakly operationalized, or disconnected from measurable outcomes. While managerial literature emphasizes the importance of clear goals for guiding administrative action and promoting accountability (Hood, 1991), in the case of SPP there remains a gap between strategic formulation and practical implementation.

Regarding performance indicators, legal advisory guides (Brasil, 2020b, 2022b) recommend the adoption of metrics to monitor the incorporation of sustainability criteria from the planning stage, including aspects such as energy consumption, material reuse, and environmental impact. Similarly, the external oversight booklet (Brasil, 2024l) highlights the importance of measuring indirect impacts of procurement, as emphasized in the literature (Moura, 2013; Souza, 2019; Silva & Cohen, 2023).

In practice, however, the evaluation report of internal control (Brasil, 2024n) found that 80% of the audited organizations lacked defined indicators and targets for their PLS, warning that this may compromise the achievement of strategic objectives. Civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2021, 2022, 2024) likewise point to the absence of robust indicators to assess the effectiveness of SPP, a finding also reflected in the studies by Jereissati & Melo (2020). Post-managerial literature proposes a broader approach to measurement, considering not only efficiency but also equity and sustainability as dimensions of public performance (Denhardt, 2012; Santos, 2016).

Therefore, the evaluation of SPP outcomes remains one of the most fragile aspects of results-based management. External oversight reports (Brasil, 2017a, b, 2021b) and civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2023, 2024) converge in identifying the absence of consolidated data, stagnation in indicators related to SDG Target 12.7, and the lack of monitoring and feedback mechanisms. When evaluation does occur, it is predominantly indirect, associated with programs such as the Food Acquisition Program (PAA) and the National School Feeding Program (PNAE), which incorporate sustainability criteria into public procurement.

Critical perspectives on managerialism warn that evaluation focused exclusively on quantitative results tends to obscure the social and environmental effects of public policies (Paula, 2005; Drumond et al., 2014). This underscores the importance of evaluative models that integrate goals, indicators, and impacts.

4.3 Professionalization

The professionalization of public agents involved in SPP constitutes a key pillar for consolidating this policy as an institutional practice. This dimension focuses on training and people development (continuous learning in the field), recruitment and employment arrangements (entry and retention structures), and incentives (inducement mechanisms) (Bresser-Pereira, 1996; Tenório, 2005; Denhardt, 2012), forming the institutional capacity base required for the implementation of SPP.

Institutional management documents (Brasil, 2024c, 2025a) indicate that training and people development have been offered remotely by government training institutions through actions such as the Public Procurement Learning Path, Professional Certification in Procurement and Contracts, and webinars. These initiatives suggest an effort to strengthen the technical qualifications of public agents, aligned with the managerial emphasis on competence and efficiency (Bresser-Pereira, 1996).

Despite these initiatives, the shortage of specialized human resources continues to constrain the operational capacity of SPP, as reported in management reports (Brasil, 2022a, 2023b). Legal advisory guides (Brasil, 2019a, 2020b, 2021a, 2022b) recognize that training is a necessary condition for effective implementation, as highlighted by Grandia (2016). However, the internal control evaluation report (Brasil, 2024n) indicated that, in the years 2022 and 2023, 100% of the audited organizations did not have structured learning pathways for developing the competences of public agents occupying essential functions in procurement.

The external oversight booklet (Brasil, 2024l) assigns responsibility to leadership for the training of procurement professionals. This is consistent with the findings of Silva & Cohen (2023), which highlight the importance of leadership knowledge and behavior in incorporating sustainability criteria into government procurements.

Institutional culture, as a cross-cutting element of professionalization, is critically addressed in external oversight reports (Brasil, 2017a, b, 2021b) and civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2017, 2021), which point to the limited reach of training initiatives and the absence of large-scale dissemination strategies as constraints on the consolidation of SPP in Brazil. From a post-managerial perspective, professionalization should go beyond technical training and include the development of an organizational culture oriented toward public policy, emphasizing participatory and dialogical decision-making processes (Tenório, 2005; Paula, 2005). In this sense, advancing professionalization requires moving beyond an instrumental approach toward training models that integrate committed leadership, critical learning, and collaborative action among different institutional actors.

4.4 Technology and innovation in management

The incorporation of technology into SPP management has been one of the dimensions most strongly shaped by managerial logic. This analysis focuses on the use of technological tools (digitalization, interoperability, and traceability) and innovation (procedural, regulatory, and organizational), highlighting their dual role in promoting standardization/automation while also enhancing information openness and transparency (Klering et al., 2010; Secchi, 2009; Denhardt, 2012).

The use of technological tools has been promoted by institutional management (Brasil, 2020c, 2021c, 2022a, 2023b; Brasil, 2024c, 2025a), particularly through the implementation of systems that led to the development of the ComprasGov platform, which aims to integrate digital systems across public procurement portals. In 2024, the management report (Brasil, 2025a) indicated that the platform covered 74% of federal entities, indirectly reached approximately 90% of the Brazilian population, and included 700,000 registered suppliers. This platform and its predecessors aim to digitize and centralize procurement processes to promote agility, standardization, and control in line with the managerial principles highlighted by Bresser-Pereira (1996) and Klering et al. (2010).

The creation and mandatory use of the National Public Procurement Portal (PNCP) follow the same logic. However, the internal control evaluation report (Brasil, 2024n) emphasizes that the effectiveness of these modernization efforts depends on adequate training of public agents to ensure the effective use of digital tools; otherwise, their full potential may be limited.

Legal advisory guides (Brasil, 2019a, 2020b, 2021a, 2023a) recommend the strategic use of technology to incorporate sustainability criteria across all stages of procurement. These documents advocate the use of digital systems, digital certification, and databases to support planning and control. Similarly, the external oversight booklet (Brasil, 2024l) highlights the importance of technological modernization in SPP to enhance transparency and oversight, enabling the monitoring of socio-environmental impacts.

Despite these advances, civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2021, 2022) highlight recurring criticisms regarding the discontinuation of earlier technological initiatives aimed at SPP, such as the deactivation of the Federal Government’s Sustainable Procurement Portal, which was designed to inform public agents and suppliers. This criticism reveals concern about the continuity of innovations applied to SPP. Although these reports acknowledge that the incorporation of Law No. 14.133/2021 (NLLC), which introduced competitive dialogue as a new bidding modality, along with platforms and portals, represents innovations in SPP, they note that there is still no empirical evidence of structural changes in administrative processes.

The adoption of digital technologies is important as an instrument for strengthening public governance, which, in the post-managerial model, is reflected in mechanisms of transparency, participation, and responsiveness of the State (Tenório, 2005; Secchi, 2009). In this sense, its use would not be limited to administrative modernization, but could promote innovation oriented towards sustainability, accountability, and the democratization of public management, articulating systems, data, and institutional actors within a logic of digital governance.

4.5 Responsibility and participation

Responsibility and participation, as a dimension oriented toward the creation of collective value, encompass the guidelines for collaborative participation (deliberation and co-production), transparency and accountability (active publicity and accountability mechanisms), and public value creation (social, environmental, and economic benefits) (Paula, 2005; Smith, 2010; Denhardt, 2012; Silvestre, 2019), as foundations of democratic legitimacy in SPP management.

Collaborative participation is incorporated in a limited way by Institutional Management (Brasil, 2025a), with emphasis on the creation of bodies such as the Interministerial Commission for Sustainable Procurement (CICS) and the National Chamber for Sustainability, which seek to articulate different bodies and sectors in the formulation of SPP. Legal advisory guides (Brasil, 2019a, 2020b, 2021a, 2022b, 2023a) recommend the engagement of collaborative networks and the co-construction of solutions involving suppliers and academic institutions. However, historically, social participation has faced challenges, including the weakening of collegiate bodies and civil society under previous governments, as documented in the civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2019, 2020, 2021), which still reverberate in the limited integration with subnational entities and civil society.

The internal control evaluation report (Brasil, 2024n) identifies a lack of sustainability committees, communication plans, and support from collegiate bodies in procurement areas within the organizations audited in 2022 and 2023. In addition, only 40% of these organizations had shared procurement policies with other institutions. From a post-managerial perspective, participation should be understood as a deliberative practice (Tenório, 1998, 2005; Secchi, 2009; Denhardt, 2012), rather than merely formal consultation - something that does not yet appear to be fully realized in SPP within the Brazilian federal context.

Transparency and accountability in public procurement are promoted, as indicated in institutional management documents (Brasil, 2020c, 2021c, 2022a), through the disclosure of documents on the PNCP, the publication of PLS, and the issuance of Management Reports. This is complemented by the disclosure of Preliminary Technical Studies (ETP), as recommended in legal advisory guides (Brasil, 2022b). However, civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2021, 2022) have denounced issues such as data blackouts, discontinuity of information channels, and lack of transparency in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) contracts in previous federal administrations, highlighting that transparency in procurements is a fundamental mechanism of societal oversight, enabling society to exercise oversight, informed participation, and accountability of public agents.

The internal control evaluation report (Brasil, 2024n) found that the audited organizations demonstrated good practices in documentary transparency during the periods analyzed, while also identifying opportunities to strengthen accountability and oversight mechanisms. In this regard, post-managerial literature emphasizes that transparency must be accompanied by mechanisms of horizontal accountability (between institutions at the same level) and societal oversight (Paula, 2005; Smith, 2010).

The creation of public value, as a guideline that extends beyond economic efficiency, is reflected in initiatives such as the inclusion of social criteria in procurement processes and the prioritization of products with lower environmental impact. Institutional management documents (Brasil, 2024c, 2025a) highlight initiatives such as reserving positions for women victims of domestic violence and prioritizing national technological products. Legal advisory documents (Brasil, 2016, 2019a, 2020b, 2021a, 2022b, 2023a, 2024d) and external oversight booklet (Brasil, 2024l) recognizes that SPP should generate social, environmental, and economic benefits; however, there remains a lack of integrated indicators for systematically measuring public value. Civil society reports (GTSC A2030, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) reinforce the potential of SPP to integrate social, environmental, and economic policies, but also note that limited implementation constrains its effectiveness. According to post-managerial logic, public value emerges from the interaction between the State and society, guided by ethical and democratic principles (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000; Batista et al., 2025). In this sense, for SPP to fulfill this role, the documentary data suggests that it is necessary to strengthen participation, enhance transparency, and consolidate sustainability as a cross-cutting public value.

4.6 Analytical matrix of sustainable public procurement management

To systematize the analysis, an analytical matrix (presented in Appendix 1) was developed to organize the dimensions and operational guidelines of public management considered in the examination of SPP within the Brazilian Federal Public Administration. Each guideline was classified as consolidated, partially consolidated, or fragile/absent based on the systematic extraction of documentary evidence, which enabled assessment of its institutionalization.

5 Conclusions

The analysis of SPP through the lens of the dimensions and operational guidelines of public management, derived from the literature on managerialism and post-managerialism, reveals that although there have been normative and operational advances, its institutionalization remains fragmented, with asymmetries and gaps in articulation among actors within the Brazilian Federal Public Administration.

Institutional management has played a relevant role in the regulation and operationalization of SPP, particularly in consolidating the use of technological tools and operational efficiency, reflecting adherence to managerial logic. However, this fragmentation is not incidental; rather, it reflects a structural tension between instruments oriented toward efficiency (standardization, procedural speed, and economicity) and mechanisms of socio-environmental responsibility that require qualified discretion, interorganizational coordination, and substantive metrics of public value. Moreover, its actions remain characterized by limited articulation with subnational entities and limited integration of the principles of collaborative governance.

Legal advisory has played a guiding role promoting technical and normative guidelines, but faces challenges in institutionalizing process reengineering and managerial autonomy, which remain only partially consolidated. Internal control has identified weaknesses in the integration across administrative levels. These obstacles reflect, at the operational level, the aforementioned structural tension: the emphasis on formal compliance and ex ante controls (inherited from the bureaucratic tradition), combined with pressures for efficiency and performance typical of managerialism, may contribute to sidelining the substantive measurement of socio-environmental impacts and the institutional learning required for SPP, generating trade-offs between procedural speed/security and the socio-environmental quality of outcomes.

External oversight acknowledges the relevance of SPP in its booklet, which is primarily focused on legal and procedural aspects. However, it does not incorporate the Governance and Sustainability Index (iESGO) and the indicator of capacity to implement SPP (ContratSustent), both developed by the Court itself through self-assessment questionnaires applied to voluntary public organizations. The 2024 ContratSustent data align with the findings of this documentary analysis, indicating that 36% of organizations were at an initial stage of SPP implementation, below expectations, given the existing legal references; and that more than 55% did not prioritize shared or centralized procurement, opting instead for isolated practices, which leads to inefficiencies in time and resource use (Brasil, 2024m). Societal oversight, in turn, has acted as a critical and propositional force, highlighting structural gaps and proposing pathways toward the democratization of SPP in public management. These findings reinforce that the predominance of legality and economicity metrics, when disconnected from socio-environmental impact indicators, reproduces the underlying tension: organizations tend to maximize procedural efficiency without internalizing life-cycle costs, equity considerations, or externalities, thereby discouraging coordination and shared procurement practices that could enhance socio-environmental outcomes.

The academic literature aligns with these findings, indicating that although managerialism has introduced relevant instruments for the modernization of public management, these mechanisms alone have not proven sufficient to ensure the effectiveness of SPP. In this regard, there is a need for a complementary, post-managerial approach that values citizen participation, public value creation, and sustainability as structuring principles of state action. Analytically, the critical issue lies in the decoupling between instrumental efficiency (focused on means and processes) and substantive accountability (oriented toward goals and impacts): while the former advances through digitalization and standardization, the latter requires targets, indicators, and evaluation mechanisms capable of capturing socio-environmental public value. Otherwise, the dominant rationality will remain centered on short-term economicity.

In this context, SPP constitutes a particularly relevant object for analyzing the paradigmatic transition of Brazilian public management, as it requires the articulation of distinct rationalities, multiple decision-making scales, and diverse actors. For SPP to advance as a structuring public policy, the documentary evidence suggests the need to overcome institutional fragmentation and promote interinstitutional governance oriented toward integrating operational guidelines. Apparently, the institutionalization of SPP depends not only on normative instruments, but also on cultural and political changes in how the State conceives and performs its functions.

From a theoretical perspective, this study deepens understanding of SPP as a paradigmatic object of analysis, situated at the intersection of managerial and substantive rationality. The coexistence of these rationalities in contemporary Brazilian federal public administration is not configured as a harmonious synthesis, but as a dynamic field of tensions and overlaps, in which efficiency- and control-oriented practices are strained by social and normative demands that call for a more democratic and sustainability-oriented public management.

By articulating the dimensions of public management alongside the functions performed by different institutional actors, this article systematizes an analytical matrix that enables an understanding of SPP not merely as an administrative procedure but as a complex, interdependent, and multidimensional public policy. Based on this matrix, it is possible to identify that the most consolidated guidelines in the analyzed documents are: (i) the use of technological tools in management; and (ii) the pursuit of operational efficiency and effectiveness. In contrast, the most fragile guidelines are: (i) goal-setting; (ii) performance indicators; and (iii) results evaluation.

From a practical standpoint, the findings point to pathways for improving public procurement management in Brazil, emphasizing the importance of expanding training for public agents, integrating technological systems, strengthening performance monitoring, and consolidating mechanisms of social participation. The data also suggest that, to be effective, sustainability must be embedded as a cross-cutting value rather than treated merely as a regulatory requirement. As indicated by oversight reports, building this culture requires time, resources, and institutional commitment, and is a fundamental condition for SPP to fulfill its strategic role in promoting sustainable development.

This study acknowledges its limitations. Documentary analysis, although conducted rigorously, is constrained by the availability and representativeness of the selected documents, which may limit the empirical scope of the findings. Moreover, the qualitative approach, by its interpretive nature, requires caution in generalizing results. These limitations, however, do not undermine the validity of the analysis; rather, they indicate avenues for future in-depth research.

Future studies may explore comparative analyses across different federative entities in order to understand how administrative capacities and institutional arrangements are associated with the institutionalization of SPP in diverse contexts. Further research could also examine the effects of SPP on other public policies, particularly regarding its role in fostering sustainable practices within the public sector. Such studies may deepen and expand both the theoretical and practical understanding of SPP as an instrument for institutional transformation and the promotion of sustainable development in Brazil.

Appendix 1  Analytical matrix of sustainable public procurement management in the Brazilian Federal Public Administration.

Public Management			Sustainable Public Procurement
Dimension	Operational Guideline	Description	Status	Assessment
Organizational structure	Operational efficiency and effectiveness	Pursuit of improved outcomes through the rational use of resources and process agility.	✅	Convergence across normative, technical, and oversight documents. Guidelines and logistics booklets promote eco-efficiency and rationalization; CICS resolutions and audits reinforce the importance of governance; management and civil society reports recognize the strategic role of procurement, though they also highlight practical limitations and low adherence in some institutions.
	Process reengineering	Review or redesign of administrative processes.	⚠️	Documents indicate efforts toward digitalization, standardization, and integration of socio-environmental criteria. However, there is divergence regarding practical consolidation: while guidelines and logistics booklets suggest structural advances, evaluation and audit reports indicate limitations in institutionalization and in measuring results, revealing implementation remains partial.
	Administrative decentralization	Distribution of responsibilities across different levels and units of public administration.	⚠️	Documents recognize it as strategic, particularly through individualized PLS, preferential margins for subnational entities, and expanded institutional accountability. However, oversight documents point to weaknesses in central coordination, indicating that despite conceptual advances, implementation remains limited and fragmented.
	Managerial autonomy	Capacity of public organizations to make decisions with greater operational independence.	⚠️	Presented as a guiding principle in technical, legal, and oversight documents, including the adaptation of reference models, creation of local committees, and delegation of responsibilities. However, oversight documents reveal structural limitations, lack of internal regulations, and low adherence to A3P, indicating that although autonomy is encouraged, it is not yet fully translated into practice.
Results-based management	Goal-setting	Establishment of clear goals to guide action.	⛔	Although recognized as essential in normative and technical documents, goal-setting for SPP faces significant challenges to its institutionalization. Logistics manuals and CICS resolutions outline strategic practices and specific targets, but evaluation, audit, and civil society reports indicate a lack of clear, mandatory goals in most public organizations, undermining the measurement of the effectiveness of sustainable actions.
	Performance indicators	Tools to measure and monitor results.	⛔	Documents acknowledge the essential role of measuring and improving SPP, proposing indicators derived from the PLS and monitoring strategies. However, management, evaluation, audit, and civil society reports reveal significant gaps: a lack of consolidated evidence, low scores on TCU indicators, and stagnation in SDG Target 12.7. The absence of institutionalization and standardization undermines effective measurement.
	Results evaluation	Analysis of impacts and effectiveness of processes.	⛔	Recognized as essential in technical and legal documents, including the use of PLS reports, life-cycle analysis, and impact indicators. However, evaluation, audit, and civil society reports point to a lack of institutionalization, stagnation of results, and absence of systematic measurement mechanisms. The gap between normative progress and practice reveals structural fragility that undermines feedback and improvement of SPP.
Professionalization	Training and people development	Training of public agents for their work.	⚠️	Widely recognized as essential in normative, technical, and oversight documents, with initiatives such as learning pathways, certifications, and online training. However, evaluation, audit, and civil society reports indicate insufficient professionalization, staff shortages, and a lack of structured plans, showing that despite advances and recommendations, the institutionalization of continuous training remains partial and faces challenges of scale and effectiveness.
Technology and innovation in management	Use of technological tools	Application of digital systems to modernize and streamline processes.	✅	There is consensus on advances in digitalization and automation of SPP, particularly through ComprasGov, PNCP, and Digital Preliminary Technical Studies (ETP). Although evaluation reports point to limitations in the technical training of public agents, documents indicate consolidated and structured efforts toward modernization, standardization, and traceability, with significant impacts on administrative efficiency.
	Innovation	Implementation of innovative practices in processes.	⚠️	There are advances in social and procedural aspects, such as the inclusion of vulnerable groups and greater agility in decision-making. However, oversight documents point to weak institutionalization and a lack of concrete evidence of transformation in administrative processes, indicating still incipient implementation.
Responsibility and participation	Collaborative participation	Involvement of communities, collaborative networks, and organizations in the formulation and implementation of processes.	⚠️	Valued in the documents, with emphasis on the creation of the CICS and its articulation with partners. However, evaluation, audit, and social control reports point to structural limitations and low institutionalization of participatory forums; although there are efforts and recommendations, the effectiveness of social participation in SPP remains incipient and fragmented.
	Transparency and accountability	Disclosure of information and justification regarding the use of public resources.	⚠️	Recognized in documents, especially through mandatory publication on PNCP and disclosure of contracts and documents across procurement stages. However, audit and civil society reports reveal limited dissemination of PLS results, a lack of data, and weaknesses in accountability, indicating that, despite normative advances, transparency still faces institutional challenges.
	Public value creation	Generation of economic, social, environmental, and ethical benefits.	⚠️	Widely recognized in documents, including affirmative actions and social criteria in procurement. SPP is framed as a tool for social, environmental, and economic transformation. However, evaluation, audit, and civil society reports indicate limited diffusion and institutionalization, suggesting partial implementation and reliance on stronger institutional commitment.

Legend: ✅ Consolidated guideline - Consistent presence across documents, with supporting practical evidence. ⚠️ Partially consolidated guideline - Formally recognized, but with limited or fragmented implementation. ⛔ Fragile or absent guideline - Limited presence in documents and/or lack of practical evidence.

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that there are no acknowledgments to report.

Statement on Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available on digital platforms.

• Financial support:
  None.
• How to cite:
  Inglat, L. P. S., Cabral, V. N., & Guerrieri, D. C. (2026). Expressions of managerialism and post-managerialism in sustainable public procurement in the Brazilian Federal Public Administration. Gestão & Produção, 33, e10725. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2026v33e10725

References

• Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento Orçamento e Gestão – MPOG. (2014a). Caderno de logística – prestação de serviços de transporte Brasília, DF: MPOG.
• Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento Orçamento e Gestão – MPOG. (2014b). Caderno de logística – prestação de serviços de vigilância patrimonial Brasília, DF: MPOG.
• Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento Orçamento e Gestão – MPOG. (2014c). Caderno de logística – prestação de serviços de limpeza, asseio e conservação Brasília, DF: MPOG.
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2016). Guia Nacional de Licitações Sustentáveis (1. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da União – TCU. (2017a). Acórdão nº 1.056/2017 – Plenário, de 24 de maio de 2017. Brasília, DF: TCU.
• Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da União – TCU. (2017b). Sumário Executivo: Sustentabilidade na Administração Pública Federal. Auditoria TC 006.615/2016-3. Brasília, DF: TCU.
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2019a). Guia Nacional de Contratações Sustentáveis (2. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento Desenvolvimento e Gestão – MPDG. (2019b). Relatório de gestão 2018 Brasília, DF: MPDG.
• Brasil. (2020a, October 26). Decreto nº 10.531, de 26 de outubro de 2020: institui a Estratégia Federal de Desenvolvimento para o Brasil no período de 2020 a 2031 Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil. Retrieved in 2025, September 10, from https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/d10531.htm
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2020/decreto/d10531.htm
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2020b). Guia Nacional de Contratações Sustentáveis (3. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Ministério da Economia. (2020c). Relatório de gestão 2019. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Economia.
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2021a). Guia Nacional de Contratações Sustentáveis (4. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da União – TCU. (2021b). Acórdão nº 3.254/2021 – Plenário, de 15 de dezembro de 2021. Brasília, DF: TCU.
• Brasil. Ministério da Economia. (2021c). Relatório de gestão 2020. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Economia.
• Brasil. Ministério da Economia. (2022a). Relatório de gestão 2021. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Economia.
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2022b). Guia Nacional de Contratações Sustentáveis (5. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2023a). Guia Nacional de Contratações Sustentáveis (6. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Ministério da Economia. (2023b). Relatório de gestão 2022. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Economia.
• Brasil. Ministério da Gestão e da Inovação em Serviços Públicos – MGI. (2024a). Caderno de logística – pesquisa de preços. Brasília, DF: MGI.
• Brasil. Ministério da Gestão e da Inovação em Serviços Públicos – MGI. (2024b). Caderno de logística – plano diretor de logística sustentável. Brasília, DF: MGI.
• Brasil. Ministério da Gestão e da Inovação em Serviços Públicos – MGI. (2024c). Relatório de gestão integrado 2023. Brasília, DF: MGI.
• Brasil. Advocacia-Geral da União – AGU. (2024d). Guia Nacional de Contratações Sustentáveis (7. ed.). Brasília, DF: AGU.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024e). Ata da 1ª reunião extraordinária realizada em 12 de setembro de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024f). Ata da 1ª reunião ordinária realizada em 23 de maio de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024g). Ata da 2ª reunião extraordinária realizada em 14 de outubro de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024h). Ata da 2ª reunião ordinária realizada em 5 de setembro de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024i). Ata da 3ª reunião extraordinária realizada em 22 de novembro de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024j). Resolução SEGES-CICS/MGI nº 2, de 2 de julho de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2024k). Resolução SEGES-CICS/MGI nº 5, de 18 de outubro de 2024 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da União – TCU. (2024l). Licitações e contratos: orientações e jurisprudência do TCU (5. ed.). Brasília, DF: TCU.
• Brasil. Tribunal de Contas da União – TCU. (2024m). Relatório técnico do levantamento iESGo 2024: Índice de Governança e Sustentabilidade. Brasília, DF: TCU.
• Brasil. Controladoria-Geral da União – CGU. (2024n). Relatório de Avaliação – Exercício 2022 e 2023: Ordem de Serviço nº 1573338. Brasília, DF: CGU.
• Brasil. Ministério da Gestão e da Inovação em Serviços Públicos – MGI. (2025a). Relatório de gestão integrado 2024. Brasília, DF: MGI.
• Brasil. (2025b). Com R$ 144 bilhões investidos em compras públicas este ano, sudeste sedia oficina que vai redesenhar contratações no país Ministério da Gestão e da Inovação em Serviços Públicos. Retrieved in 2025, September 10, from https://www.gov.br/gestao/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2025/maio/com-r-144-bilhoes-investidos-em-compras-publicas-este-ano-sudeste-sedia-oficina-que-vai-redesenhar-contratacoes-no-pais
  » https://www.gov.br/gestao/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2025/maio/com-r-144-bilhoes-investidos-em-compras-publicas-este-ano-sudeste-sedia-oficina-que-vai-redesenhar-contratacoes-no-pais
• Brasil. Comissão Interministerial de Contratações Públicas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável – CICS. (2025c). Resolução CICS/MGI nº 8, de 31 de março de 2025 Brasília, DF: CICS.
• Alves, L. H., Saramago, G., Valente, L. F., & Sousa, A. S. (2021). Análise documental e sua contribuição no desenvolvimento da pesquisa científica. Cadernos da FUCAMP, 20(43), 51-63. Retrieved in 2025, June 5, from https://revistas.fucamp.edu.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/2335
  » https://revistas.fucamp.edu.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/2335
• Batista, M. A. C., Gurgel, G. D., Jr., & Medeiros, K. R. (2025). New public management to post-new public management: contributions on the transition process. Administração de Empresas em Revista, 1(38), 27-52. Retrieved in 2025, June 11, from https://revista.unicuritiba.edu.br/index.php/admrevista/article/view/6938
  » https://revista.unicuritiba.edu.br/index.php/admrevista/article/view/6938
• Biderman, R., & Macedo, L. S. V., Monzoni, M. P., No., & Mazon, R. (2008). Guia de compras públicas sustentáveis: uso do poder de compra do governo para a promoção do desenvolvimento sustentável Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Centro de Estudos em Sustentabilidade. Retrieved in 2025, August 13, from https://hdl.handle.net/10438/15417
  » https://hdl.handle.net/10438/15417
• Brammer, S., & Walker, H. (2011). Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international comparative study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(4), 452-476. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111119551
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111119551
• Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (1996). A reforma da administração pública. In L. C. Bresser-Pereira (Ed.), Crise econômica e reforma do Estado no Brasil (pp. 269-294). São Paulo: Editora 34.
• Bresser-Pereira, L. C. (2008). O modelo estrutural de gerência pública. Revista de Administração Pública, 42(2), 391-410. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122008000200009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122008000200009
• Cabral, V. N., Inglat, L. P. da S., Castro, B. S., & Guerrieri, D. C. (2025). Analysis of commitment to the implementation of sustainable public procurement in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Development, 18(3), 204-217. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v18n3p204
  » https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v18n3p204
• Campelo, G. S. B. (2010). Public administration in Brazil: cycles between patronage, bureaucracy and managerialism, a symbiosis of models. Ciência & Trópico, 34(2), 297-324. Retrieved in 2025, August 22, from https://bd.tjmg.jus.br/handle/123456789/14823
  » https://bd.tjmg.jus.br/handle/123456789/14823
• Cavalcanti, D., D’Avignon, A., Oliveira, G., Schneider, H., & Taboulchanas, K. (2017). Compras públicas sustentáveis: diagnóstico, análise comparada e recomendações para o aperfeiçoamento do modelo brasileiro (Série Documentos de Proyecto, No. 41009). Santiago: CEPAL.
• Cechinel, A., Fontana, S. A. P., Della, K. G. P., Pereira, A. S., & Prado, S. S. (2016). Research/document analysis: in their theoretical and methodological aspects. Criar Educação, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.18616/ce.v5i1.2446
  » https://doi.org/10.18616/ce.v5i1.2446
• Cellard, A. (2008). A análise documental. In J. Poupart, J. P. Deslauriers, L. H. Groulx, A. Laperrière, R. Mayer, & A. P. Pires (Orgs.), A pesquisa qualitativa: enfoques epistemológicos e metodológicos (pp. 295-316). Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
• Denhardt, R. B. (2012). Teorias da administração pública. São Paulo: Cengage Learning.
• Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117
• Dowbor, L. (2001). Gestão social e transformação da sociedade. In L. Dowbor, & S. Kilsztajn (Eds.), Economia social no Brasil (pp. 17-41). São Paulo: Senac.
• Drumond, A. M., Silveira, S. F. R., & Silva, E. A. (2014). Predominance or coexistence? Brazilian public administration models in the National Housing Policy. Revista de Administração Pública, 48, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122014000100001
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122014000100001
• European Commission – EC. (2008). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green and Sustainable Public Procurement Retrieved in 2025, August 13, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/versus_en.htm
  » http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/versus_en.htm
• Evangelista, O. (2012). Apontamentos para o trabalho com documentos de política educacional. In R. M. L. Araujo & D. S. Rodrigues (Orgs.), A pesquisa em trabalho, educação e políticas educacionais (pp. 52-71). Campinas, SP: Alínea.
• Fernandes, C. C. C. (2008). Transformações na gestão de compras da administração pública brasileira. Compras Públicas, 1(5), 50-70. Retrieved in 2025, August 13, from http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/1713
  » http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/1713
• Freitas, J., & Villac, T. (2020). Sustainable public procurement: Concept and principles. In W. Leal Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, P. G. Özuyar, & T. Wall (Eds.), Responsible consumption and production. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals (pp. 796-804). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_106
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_106
• Grandia, J. (2016). Finding the missing link: examining the mediating role of sustainable public procurement behaviour. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.102
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.102
• Grandia, J., Steijn, B., & Kuipers, B. (2015). It is not easy being green: increasing sustainable public procurement behaviour. Innovation (Abingdon), 28(3), 243-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2015.1024639
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2015.1024639
• Grandia, J., & Voncken, D. (2019). Sustainable public procurement: the impact of ability, motivation, and opportunity on the implementation of different types of sustainable public procurement. Sustainability (Basel), 11(19), 5215. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195215
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195215
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2017). I Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2018). II Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2019). III Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2020). IV Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2021). V Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2022). VI Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2023). VII Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para a Agenda 2030 – GTSC A2030. (2024). VIII Civil Society Spotlight Report on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Recife: GTSC.
• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
• Inglat, L. P. S., Cabral, V. N., Castro, B. S., & Guerrieri, D. C. (2024). Sustainability and sustainable public procurement: an assessment of individual, organizational, and political commitment in Brazilian public administration. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(3), e07200. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n3-174
  » https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n3-174
• Inglat, L. P. S., & Guerrieri, D. C. (2025). Sustainable procurement in the Brazilian federal public administration: a scoping review. Revista Gestão & Sustentabilidade, 7(1), e15287. https://doi.org/10.36661/2596-142X.2025v7n1.15287
  » https://doi.org/10.36661/2596-142X.2025v7n1.15287
• Jereissati, L., & Melo, A. (2020). Sustainable public procurement and implementation of goal 12.7 of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in Brazil: advances and backwards. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.0.19.238/rbpp.v10i3.7237.
• Klering, L. R., Porsse, M. C. S., & Guadagnin, L. A. (2010). Novos caminhos da administração pública brasileira. Análise: Revista de Administração da PUCRS, 21(1). Retrieved in 2025, July 15, from https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/face/article/view/8231
  » https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/face/article/view/8231
• Lima, E. B., Jr., Oliveira, G. S., Santos, A. C. O., & Schnekenberg, G. F. (2021). Análise documental como percurso metodológico na pesquisa qualitativa. Cadernos da FUCAMP, 20(44), 36-51. Retrieved in 2025, July 15, from https://revistas.fucamp.edu.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/2356
  » https://revistas.fucamp.edu.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/2356
• Lüdke, M., & André, M. (1986). Pesquisa em educação: abordagens qualitativas. São Paulo, SP: Editora Pedagógica e Universitária.
• Minayo, M. C. D. S. (2009). Pesquisa social: teoria, método e criatividade. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Vozes.
• Moura, A. M. M. D. (2013). As compras públicas sustentáveis e sua evolução no Brasil. Boletim Regional Urbano e Ambiental, 7, 23-33. Retrieved in 2025, July 15, from http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/5584
  » http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/5584
• Nonato, R. (2022). Sustainable public procurement in Brazil: history and the proposition of a taxonomy. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas e Internacionais, 7, 117-140. https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2525-5584.2022v7n1.59425
  » https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2525-5584.2022v7n1.59425
• Paula, A. P. P. (2005). Administração pública brasileira entre o gerencialismo e a gestão social. RAE, 45(1), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902005000100005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902005000100005
• Pereira, P. R. M. (2017). Direito de reclamação do usuário de serviço público: um instrumento de controle social no atual modelo de administração pública brasileira [The right of complaint of public service users: An instrument of societal oversight in the current Brazilian public administration model] (Master’s thesis). Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre. Retrieved in 2025, August 13, from http://hdl.handle.net/10183/169479
  » http://hdl.handle.net/10183/169479
• Rodrigues, J. S. (2019). Environmental agenda in public administration and sustainable bidding as governance instruments. Revista Controle – Doutrina e Artigos, 16(2), 376-401. https://doi.org/10.32586/rcda.v16i2.495
  » https://doi.org/10.32586/rcda.v16i2.495
• Santos, M. A. E. (2016). Perception of public procurement agents about the sustainable procurement (Master’s thesis). Western Paraná State University, Francisco Beltrão. Retrieved in 2025, August 13, from https://tede.unioeste.br/handle/tede/1011
  » https://tede.unioeste.br/handle/tede/1011
• Sá-Silva, J. R., Almeida, C. D. D., & Guindani, J. F. (2009). Documentary research: theoretical and methodological clues. Revista Brasileira de História & Ciências Sociais, 1(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.63595/rbhcs.v1i1.10351
  » https://doi.org/10.63595/rbhcs.v1i1.10351
• Sátiro, R. S. (2012). Administração pública e desenvolvimento social local: análise da elaboração do plano municipal de assistência social – PMASWEB [Public administration and local social development: An analysis of the formulation of the Municipal Social Assistance Plan - PMASWEB] (Master’s thesis). Centro Universitário de Franca, Franca. Retrieved in 2025, June 17, from https://pos.unifacef.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Rodrigo-Salgado-Satiro_Dissertacao.pdf
  » https://pos.unifacef.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Rodrigo-Salgado-Satiro_Dissertacao.pdf
• Secchi, L. (2009). Modelos organizacionais e reformas da administração pública. Revista de Administração Pública, 43(2), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122009000200004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-76122009000200004
• Silva, R. C., & Cohen, M. (2023). Sustainable public procurement: analysis of five shared experiences in federal institutions in Brazil. Revista Economia & Gestão, 23(65), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.5752/P.1984-6606.2023v23n65p59-74
  » https://doi.org/10.5752/P.1984-6606.2023v23n65p59-74
• Silveira, E. H. S. (2022). A administração pública e o diálogo competitivo: o atual modelo administrativo no Brasil e uma tragédia anunciada [Public administration and competitive dialogue: The current administrative model in Brazil and an announced tragedy] (Undergraduate thesis). Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, São Paulo. Retrieved in 2025, June 17, from https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/31923
  » https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/31923
• Silvestre, H. C. (2019). A (Nova) governança pública. Brasília, DF: Enap.
• Smith, A. (2010). Governança de múltiplos níveis: o que é e como pode ser estudada. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Administração pública: coletânea (Cap. 28, pp. 619-635). São Paulo: Editora Unesp.
• Souza, A. G. D. (2019). Contratações públicas sustentáveis no Brasil: a redefinição da concepção da vantajosidade das propostas [Sustainable public procurement in Brazil: Redefining the concept of advantageous proposals] (Master’s thesis). University Center of Brasília, Brasília. Retrieved in 2025, June 17, from https://repositorio.uniceub.br/jspui/handle/prefix/14520
  » https://repositorio.uniceub.br/jspui/handle/prefix/14520
• Tenório, F. G. (2005). (Re)visitando o conceito de gestão social. Desenvolvimento em Questão, 3(5), 101-124. http://doi.org/10.21527/2237-6453.2005.5.101-124.
• Tenório, F. G. (1998). Gestão social: uma perspectiva conceitual. Revista de Administração Pública, 32(5), 7-23. Retrieved in 2025, July 15, from https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/7754
  » https://periodicos.fgv.br/rap/article/view/7754
• United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP. (2021). Sustainable public procurement: How to wake the sleeping giant! Introducing the United Nations Environment Programme’s approach Nairobi: UNEP.
• Vieira, I. L., Silva, E. R., & Mattos, U. A. O. (2020). Public sector social-environmental diagnosis model: application in a federal autarky, Rio de Janeiro. Gestão & Produção, 27(3), e4957. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x4957-20
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530x4957-20
• Vipievski, J. M. Jr, & Tomporoski, A. A. (2023). Current Brazilian public administration: the coexistence of patrimonialism, bureaucracy, managerialism and public governance. Profanações, 10, 501-532. https://doi.org/10.24302/prof.v10.4726
  » https://doi.org/10.24302/prof.v10.4726

• Editor-in-Chief
  Pedro Munari

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  02 Oct 2025
• Reviewed
  16 Feb 2026
• Accepted
  08 Apr 2026