# Measuring the Effect of Circular Public Procurement on Government's Environmental Impact
## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
The analyses, using the sample-based mixed-method approach, showed that application of CPP in 2017-2018 in the Netherlands led to effects in one third of its applications. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in the mixed-method research design allowed us to (1) narrow down the need for quantitative data to the samples where an effect was expected based on the qualitative data and (2) analyze the main reasons for two thirds of the CPP criteria applications not resulting in a climate benefit and reduced material consumption. The main reasons were that (1) in many tenders, the applied criteria lacked ambition, and (2) in some tenders, ambitious criteria were not operationalized. The first reason--tenders were frequently comparable or even less ambitious than product market standards--might be found in the organizational change required to successfully implement sustainable procurement and thus also CPP. It requires changing existing organizational routines, which takes time [41]. It seems that in many situations, applying CPP criteria is not yet backed up with the organizational change necessary for ambitious application. What might play a role, and what takes time to change, is that according to [PERSON] (2012) [42], previous procurement policies have led to procurers developing risk-averse behavior. However, in order to launch customers and procurement that stimulate the transition toward a circular economy, room for experiments and innovation is required. In a study in the context of realizing an innovative circular bridge, [PERSON] et al. showed the importance of the government in making innovations possible by, among other methods, limiting financial risks, explicitly managing the risk (e.g., by ensuring a fallback option) and clearly splitting the developing and realization phases of the project [43]. Hence, in order to successfully implement CPP with impact, public authorities should not walk away from risks but facilitate management of the risks for all involved parties. Another role the government can play in the implementation of impactful CPP has been proposed by different authors, such as [PERSON] in her study on drivers for sustainable procurement in Denmark [16] and [PERSON] et al. in their study on factors that resist sustainable procurement in Pakistan [20]. They concluded that two main drivers of sustainable procurement are governmental regulation and legislation and pressure from stakeholders such as customers. [PERSON] suggests that governments set minimum mandatory requirements. The results of our study add to this advice by showing that when setting these minimum requirements, this should be performed in such a way that it stimulates more ambitious procurement than the current market standard. The preparation of minimum requirements can already trigger the market to change, resulting in a new market standard before or shortly after the CPP criteria are operationalized. Hence, developing mandatory minimum requirements that stay ambitious enough to trigger the market is an important field of investigation. The second reason is that ambitious tenders and offers were not implemented, showing that the organizational change required not only focuses on the procurement department of the contracting authorities but also involves the whole organization. The success of CPP does not depend on a single activity in the procurement procedure, but it can increase or decrease in its latter phases as well [44]. Exemplary are, for example, the tenders that ask for products (in this study furniture and workwear) to be easily recyclable, but in the contracting phase, no activities were defined yet to make sure the products would indeed be recycled after disposal. Because circular products can be used in a linear way, circular procurement should include processes that secure the operationalization of the R-strategies. This is a point of attention, especially for the R-strategies that focus on the end of the life cycle (i.e., reuse, longer use and recycling).