Efficiency, risk and transparency in social infrastructure procurement

The more efficient the procurement processes around the construction of schools, hospitals, and all the other social infrastructure we need, the better it is for society.

But there are diverse perspectives across regions and sectors about the efficiency of the procurement process for social infrastructure. This is also true for risk and transparency.

Overall, 47% of respondents globally rate social infrastructure procurement processes as somewhat efficient. This suggests while there are areas for improvement, the procurement process is functioning adequately for many stakeholders.

These are some of the findings of Ansarada Procure’s 2025 Social Infrastructure Outlook Report, developed in partnership with Infralogic, drawing on the insights from 150 global infrastructure leaders. 

“We need to understand that more efficient solutions can come from having more participation and ideas, which can then promote innovation. We also need to rethink some of our procurement options,” says KPMG’s US managing director, Iain Tester. 

Regions show developmental differences

In the Americas, opinions are more polarized, with 38% of respondents considering the social infrastructure procurement as very efficient, the highest among the regions. However, 20% view it as very inefficient, demonstrating a significant divide in perceptions. This could be attributed to varying experiences with procurement processes across different projects or sectors. 

The Asia-Pacific region shows a strong leaning towards efficiency, with 54% of respondents rating the process as somewhat efficient. However, only 20% consider it very efficient, suggesting that while the process is generally satisfactory, there’s room for improvement. 

In the EMEA region, 52% of respondents find the process somewhat efficient, with a balanced view of its effectiveness. A smaller percentage, 24%, rate it as very efficient, indicating that while the process meets basic expectations, there is potential for further improvement.

Sectoral specifics

Investing in comprehensive and adaptable procurement systems can significantly boost efficiencies in social infrastructure projects and reduce the risk of negative public attention. 

A prime example of the challenges posed by inefficient procurement processes can be seen in Berlin's social housing sector. According to reports only 16,000 of an intended 20,000 apartments were completed in one social bousing project, illustrating the impact of procurement inefficiencies on critical social infrastructure projects.

Slow site selection, disjointed approval processes and poor coordination between public and private sectors often lead to projects missing targets. These inefficiencies can extend project timelines and exacerbate a city's affordable housing crisis.

Such delays also hinder the timely delivery of essential housing and strain public resources and trust in a government's ability to manage large-scale projects effectively. Streamlined procurement processes can address these challenges by reducing operational costs and allowing for better allocation of resources to strategic tasks.

Evaluating risk allocation in social infrastructure projects

The allocation of risks between stakeholders in social infrastructure projects is crucial for their successful execution. 

According to Ansarada Procure’s research, globally 73% of respondents believe risks are allocated either somewhat or very effectively. Specifically, 40% describe risk allocation as somewhat effective, while 33% see it as very effective. These findings suggest a generally positive outlook on risk management practices, although there is room for improvement.

In the Americas, 42% of respondents rate risk allocation as very effective, indicating a strong confidence in their systems. However, 18% perceive it as very ineffective, suggesting disparities in experiences and potential areas for improvement. 

The Asia-Pacific region shows a different trend, with 50% of respondents rating risk allocation as somewhat effective. Only 26% find it very effective, highlighting a need for enhanced strategies to boost stakeholder confidence. 

In the EMEA region, perceptions are mixed. While 40% consider risk allocation somewhat effective, 24% rate it as somewhat ineffective. This points to challenges in creating a more consistent approach to risk distribution.

Sector-specific insights reveal that government agencies are considered most effective in risk allocation, with only 6% rating it very ineffective. Privately-owned social infrastructure developers and transaction advisories show varied results, with 16% of developers and 16% of advisories considering the process very ineffective.

The role of transparency and auditability in procurement processes 

For procurement professionals, transparency and auditability are top priorities, with 74% of respondents ranking them as essential or important to their processes. Specifically, 35% rate transparency and auditability as very important, while 39% consider them essential. 

Globally, 88% of respondents believe their procurement processes are at least somewhat transparent to internal stakeholders. This confidence in in-house oversight mechanisms is reflected across different regions. 

In the Americas, 32% of respondents label transparency as essential, while 36% find it very important. The Asia-Pacific region shows a similar trend, with 42% considering it essential, highlighting a regional commitment to improving procurement transparency. In the EMEA region, 42% of respondents also see transparency as essential, aligning with the global emphasis on these practices. 

However, while organizations acknowledge the importance of transparency, operationalizing it is another matter. The survey reveals significant disparities in transparency levels by organization type. 

For instance, 40% of transaction advisories describe their processes as entirely transparent to internal stakeholders, compared to 28% of government agencies and just 15% of privately-owned social infrastructure developers. This disparity likely reflects differences in organizational culture, compliance mandates and resource allocation. Transaction advisories, which operate in high-stakes, multi-party environments, may prioritize transparency to mitigate risk and maintain client trust, whereas private developers often focused on speed and cost efficiency may deprioritize visibility in favor of agility. 

Purpose-built procurement platforms help address these disparities by enabling secure, tiered access to data. For internal stakeholders, these systems centralize documentation, automate audit trails and standardize reporting, features that empower all sectors to improve the quality of social infrastructure projects