# Measuring the Effect of Circular Public Procurement on Government's Environmental Impact
###### Abstract
(2018) distinguished four ways in which contracting authorities implement CPP (i.e., by \"the procurement of better-quality products in circular terms, the procurement of new circular products, the use of businesses concepts that support the CE and investments in circular ecosystems\") [15]. They argue that the main overlaps of CPP with SPP and GPP are in the first two \"product- and technology-oriented\" approaches and that CPP adds the circular system perspective of the latter two. Research on the implementation of SPP and GPP has increased in the last few years. Studies from different regions in the world, both in developed and developing countries, investigated the conditions that support or hamper SPP implementation using questionnaires, mainly [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2009, UK), [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2011, Germany), [PERSON] (2017, US), [PERSON] et al. (2019, Pakistan), [PERSON] et al. (2021, China) and [PERSON] (2021, Denmark) [16; 17; 18; 19; 20]. Research on the effect of SPP and CPP, however, is very limited [21]. This is problematic because attention on circularity or sustainability during procurement and even the application of CPP and SPP criteria are not necessarily indicators for the real efficacy of CPP policy [22; 23]. Some approaches can be found in the literature to measuring the effect of SPP. [PERSON] et al. (2018) provided a prospective approach [24]. They used a life cycle assessment (LCA)-based method to assess the potential effect of different SPP practices to support the selection of the most beneficial practice. Retrospective analyses are provided by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2010) [25], who showed how the carbon footprint of procurement by governments can be calculated based on spending data and environmental extended input-output tables, and by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2015), who provided an approach to comparing the carbon footprint of two years for a region as a basis to steer SPP [26]. The problem with the latter two approaches is that a change in the procurement footprint is not necessarily caused by SPP or CPP. It can have a range of different causes, such as a change in demands with regard to amounts or quality, a change in production processes, or a change in energy efficiency. In order to analyze the efficacy of CPP, insight is requiredfor what has been procured and what would have been procured without CPP. Therefore, in this paper, we add to the existing studies by introducing and applying an approach for retrospective analyses of the effect of CPP on the scale of a nation using a mixed-method approach. A mixed method uses and integrates both qualitative and quantitative data in one study [27]. The main aim of this paper is to evaluate whether and to what extent the application of CPP leads to reduced environmental impacts and material use, with the Netherlands as a case study. The results of this paper are meant to feed into national assessments and policies. Furthermore, the results can forward generically applicable CPP implementation practices and contribute to the development of indicators for CPP monitoring. To reach this aim, an existing sample-based mixed-method approach to analyze the implementation and actual effect of SPP was adjusted to the focus of CPP and was applied to seven product groups in the Netherlands. The scope of the study was delineated to impact greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and material use. The outcomes of this study allow for generalized conclusions which are relevant to improving CPP. Notice that in this study, the word impact is used to indicate the environmental consequences of purchased goods in their whole life cycle, and the word effect is used to indicate the efficacy of CPP in reducing the impact of purchased goods.