The golden dome of the State House. (Photo by Andy Metzger)

MASSACHUSETTS HAS MADE real progress in acknowledging the racial wealth gap. Study after study has documented the scale of the problem and the historical forces that produced it. Yet one of the most powerful tools for addressing wealth inequality remains underexamined and underused: procurement.

A bill pending in the Legislature would take a modest but critical step toward addressing that gap by requiring greater transparency in procurement practices among large institutions that benefit from public trust, public funding, or public subsidy. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Liz Miranda of Roxbury, does not mandate quotas or dictate purchasing decisions. It simply asks for disclosure—who large organizations are buying from, and how much they are buying.

That request may sound technical. In reality, it goes to the heart of how wealth is built—or excluded—in the Commonwealth.

Procurement is not just an administrative function. It is one of the largest and most consistent economic engines in the state. Public agencies, hospitals, universities, utilities, cultural institutions, and large nonprofits collectively spend tens of billions of dollars each year on goods, services, and construction. These dollars shape which firms grow, which firms scale, and which communities accumulate durable wealth.

Yet despite decades of supplier diversity initiatives, minority-owned businesses remain dramatically underrepresented in procurement outcomes. Disparity studies at the municipal and state levels repeatedly show the same pattern: participation by Black- and brown-owned firms lags far behind their availability in the marketplace.

When procurement dollars bypass minority-owned firms, the consequences ripple outward. Businesses fail to grow. Jobs are not created locally. Capital does not accumulate in communities that have historically been excluded. The racial wealth gap widens—not because of a lack of entrepreneurship, but because of structural exclusion from markets that matter most.

One reason this pattern persists is surprisingly simple: We don’t measure it consistently.

Public agencies in Massachusetts are required to track and report certain procurement data. Even then, the numbers often reveal persistent gaps. But in the private and nonprofit sectors—especially among large institutions with revenues exceeding $100 million—procurement data is largely opaque.

These institutions often play an outsized role in local economies. Hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions are frequently described as “anchor institutions” because they are place-based, stable, and deeply intertwined with their surrounding communities. Yet while their economic footprints are immense, there is little public visibility into whether their procurement practices reflect the diversity of the Commonwealth they serve.

The pending bill on procurement, S.2178, addresses this visibility gap. It does not accuse. It does not prescribe. It simply requires disclosure.

In policy terms, this is a low-cost, high-impact intervention. Transparency changes behavior—not through coercion, but through accountability.

The management adage “what gets measured gets managed” applies here. When organizations are required to disclose procurement data, patterns become visible. When patterns become visible, conversations shift from anecdote to evidence. And when evidence is available, leaders are better positioned to ask meaningful questions about policy, capacity, and opportunity.

Transparency also creates comparability. Institutions can benchmark themselves against peers. Best practices can be identified and shared. Capacity-building efforts can be targeted where they are most needed.

Most importantly, transparency respects institutional autonomy while acknowledging public interest. Organizations retain full discretion over purchasing decisions. The public gains insight into how economic power is exercised.

Since 2020 and the racial reckoning following the killing of George Floyd, many organizations have made public commitments to equity and inclusion. Some have followed through with concrete action. Others have struggled to translate intention into outcomes.

Procurement is where commitments meet reality.

Unlike donations or short-term initiatives, procurement represents recurring, operational spending. It is embedded in how institutions function day to day. Shifting procurement practices—even incrementally—can have sustained economic impact.

S.2178 does not assume bad faith. It recognizes that many institutions lack the data, systems, or internal alignment needed to change procurement outcomes. Disclosure is the first step toward diagnosing those gaps.

While goods and services procurement is critical, capital projects deserve special attention. Construction spending by public agencies, nonprofits, and quasi-public entities runs into the billions annually. These projects shape employment, subcontracting, and long-term asset ownership.

Here, too, transparency matters. Without visibility into who participates in capital projects—and under what terms—it is difficult to assess whether opportunities are being equitably distributed or systematically excluded.

Once data exist, policymakers and stakeholders can have informed discussions about workforce participation, subcontracting practices, and the role of unions, developers, and general contractors in expanding opportunity.

It is important to be clear about what the legislation on procurement transparency is—and is not.

It is not a mandate to purchase from any particular firm. It is not a punitive measure. It is not an attempt to substitute politics for procurement expertise. It is a market-building tool.

By shining a light on procurement flows, the bill enables institutions, policymakers, and business support organizations to identify where markets are failing and where capacity investments are needed. Supplier diversity cannot improve if firms are invisible to buyers or buyers are invisible to the public.

Massachusetts prides itself on being a leader—in health care, education, innovation, and equity. Large institutions across the Commonwealth benefit from public funding, tax exemptions, zoning approvals, and community goodwill. With that benefit comes responsibility.

The procurement transparency bill offers a pragmatic way to align institutional practice with public values. It asks organizations to account for how they deploy economic power—not to shame them, but to inform policy and improve outcomes.

If the Commonwealth is serious about narrowing the racial wealth gap, it must look beyond programs and pilots and examine the everyday systems through which wealth is created and distributed. Procurement is one of those systems. And transparency is where reform begins.

Ed Gaskin is executive director of Greater Grove Hall Main Streets.