Navigating trust in the public procurement judicial remedy system

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze, on the basis of novel empirical data from Finland and previous research literature, trust in procurement judicial review and the factors that influence the decision of businesses to complain or not.Design/methodology/approachThe paper applies legal and social sciences methodology. The background is based on a legal literature review, whereafter it presents the results of a survey that applies qualitative empirical methodology and discusses possible avenues for reform of rules (de lege ferenda, legal dogmatics). The main results are based on an empirical data set collected through a survey to Finnish companies (352 responses).FindingsThe results are not encouraging: almost 70 % considered that there is somewhat, a little or no trust in the public procurement judicial review system and its ability to correct an erroneous decision. This is particularly alarming as the lack of trust also appears to affect economic operators’ interest in participating in public contract awards, which is problematic from the perspectives of competition, effective public expenditure and achieving other goals such as sustainability. This study confirms that the decision of whether or not to appeal is primarily a business decision and not closely related to the actual breach in question. The public procurement remedies are designed for enabling courts to correct erroneous decisions, but the system is not equipped to solve the issues of reputational business risks. One way of addressing this issue and increasing the effectiveness of public procurement judicial review and remedies, would be to increase the availability of anonymous review mechanisms and the role of public procurement monitoring authorities.Social implicationsProvides new insights how companies view procurement litigation and on how remedies rules should be developed.Originality/valueCollection and application of novel empirical data on factors impacting companies decision-making regarding procurement litigations.