City Purchasing Power: Driving the Circular Economy Forward

6 min read

Cities have a unique opportunity to lead by example in embedding circular economy principles into their internal operations and procurement practices. Municipal governments purchase large volumes of goods annually, from office furnishings to IT equipment. By adopting procurement policies that prioritize recyclable materials, modular design, and vendors offering take-back programs, cities can significantly reduce their environmental footprint. For instance, the City of Toronto’s Circular Economy Procurement Implementation Plan focuses on integrating circularity into their purchasing decisions, such as requiring vendors to outline the recyclability and lifecycle impacts of their products¹. These types of measures not only reduce waste but also stimulate demand for sustainable products.

Municipalities can also incorporate deconstruction requirements into building codes, ensuring that materials from demolished structures are salvaged rather than landfilled. Portland, Oregon, for example, mandates deconstruction for houses built in 1916 or earlier, diverting up to 85 percent of materials from disposal and creating green job opportunities in the reuse sector². Implementing these policies requires alignment between sustainability offices, procurement departments, and building permitting agencies. Cross-departmental coordination is key to institutionalizing circular economy practices across city functions.

Leveraging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to Reduce Waste

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws shift the responsibility for end-of-life product management from municipalities to manufacturers, creating a strong incentive for producers to design for durability, reuse, and recyclability. Municipal leaders should advocate for state-level EPR legislation covering electronics, packaging, and textiles to ease local waste management burdens. Maine and Oregon have recently passed comprehensive EPR legislation for packaging, setting a precedent for other states and municipalities to follow³. These policies ensure that the true cost of waste is internalized by producers, not externalized to taxpayers.

At the municipal level, governments can also implement take-back ordinances requiring local retailers to accept used electronics or hazardous materials. San Francisco’s e-waste ordinance is a practical example, mandating that retailers selling electronic devices collect used items at no additional cost to consumers⁴. This reduces illegal dumping and ensures hazardous materials are disposed of properly. Municipalities should also partner with third-party stewardship organizations to oversee and enforce compliance, ensuring that take-back programs are effective and transparent.

Promoting Local Circular Infrastructure and Job Creation

Circular strategies are not just environmental imperatives; they are economic development tools. Cities can support the growth of local reuse, repair, and remanufacturing businesses by investing in infrastructure such as materials recovery facilities, repair hubs, and reuse centers. Austin’s [Re]Manufacturing Hub, for example, offers industrial space and incentives for companies focused on reuse and circular manufacturing, generating both environmental benefits and skilled jobs in the process⁵. These kinds of investments align sustainability goals with local economic development priorities.

Workforce development is another critical piece. Municipal governments can partner with community colleges and trade schools to develop training programs for repair technicians, deconstruction specialists, and materials recovery workers. These programs should be embedded in broader green jobs strategies to ensure that the transition to a circular economy is equitable and inclusive. A successful example is the City of Denver’s Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Ordinance, which not only mandates recycling but also includes training for contractors on compliance and material recovery techniques⁶.

Advancing Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) in Municipal Procurement

Supporting Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) models can dramatically reduce material throughput by shifting the focus from ownership to access. Municipalities can lead by example by contracting with vendors who offer lighting, HVAC, or office equipment as services rather than products. For example, instead of purchasing light fixtures, a city can contract with a company to provide lighting as a service, where the vendor retains ownership of the equipment and maintains responsibility for its performance and end-of-life recovery⁷. This model incentivizes durability and efficient lifecycle management.

Adopting PaaS requires changes in procurement language and performance-based contracting. Procurement teams must be trained to evaluate service-based models and assess total cost of ownership rather than upfront capital costs. The City of Rotterdam has piloted several such contracts in their public buildings, reducing both operational costs and environmental impact⁸. Municipal finance and sustainability offices should collaborate early in the procurement process to ensure that service-based models meet both budgetary and sustainability objectives.

Enabling the Right to Repair at the Local Level

Lobbying for Right to Repair legislation is a powerful lever for reducing e-waste and extending product life cycles. Municipal governments can formally endorse state-level right to repair bills and pass local resolutions in support of consumer and institutional repair rights. Boston and New York City have both passed resolutions urging their state legislatures to adopt Right to Repair laws, sending a clear message to manufacturers and regulators⁹. These actions create political momentum and align with broader sustainability goals.

Beyond advocacy, cities can establish community repair events and support the creation of repair cafes or tool libraries. These initiatives not only reduce waste but also foster community resilience and skills-sharing. Minneapolis, for instance, has supported Fix-It Clinics since 2012, helping residents repair over 7,000 items and keeping thousands of pounds of waste out of landfills¹⁰. Municipal support can include providing facilities, promotional assistance, and small grants to community organizations that host these events.

Conclusion: Institutionalizing Circular Thinking in Local Government

Sustainability is not a checklist; it’s a systems-thinking approach that must be embedded throughout municipal operations and community engagement strategies. Circular economy practices offer a practical, scalable framework for reducing waste, conserving resources, and building a local economy that values longevity over disposability. Municipal leaders must champion these values through policy, procurement, and partnerships.

The path forward involves aligning institutional incentives with sustainability outcomes, updating outdated procurement rules, and investing in local infrastructure that supports resource recovery and reuse. By doing so, cities can significantly reduce their environmental impact while also stimulating job creation and community resilience. True sustainability requires more than good intentions; it demands structural change, political will, and ongoing collaboration between government, business, and residents.

Bibliography

City of Toronto. “Circular Economy Procurement Implementation Plan.” Environment and Energy Division, 2021. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/8f46-Circular-Economy-Procurement-Implementation-Plan.pdf.
City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. “Deconstruction Requirements.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.portland.gov/bps/deconstruction.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. “Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility.” 2022. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/recycling/Pages/Producer-Responsibility.aspx.
City and County of San Francisco. “Electronic Waste Ordinance.” Department of the Environment, 2023. https://sfenvironment.org/e-waste.
City of Austin Economic Development Department. “[Re]Manufacturing Hub.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.austintexas.gov/remanufacturinghub.
City and County of Denver. “Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion Requirements.” Department of Public Health & Environment, 2023. https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Departments/Public-Health-Environment/Environmental-Quality/Waste-Reduction/C-D-Material-Recycling.
European Commission. “Lighting as a Service: Energy Performance Contracting.” 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-services/energy-performance-contracting_en.
Circle Economy. “Circular Procurement in Rotterdam.” 2020. https://www.circle-economy.com/case-studies/circular-procurement-in-rotterdam.
New York City Council. “Resolution in Support of the Digital Fair Repair Act.” 2021. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4899700&GUID=5F8C75C8-6632-4B5C-8D6F-9D1E4B8E5A1F.
Hennepin County. “Fix-It Clinics.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.hennepin.us/fixitclinic.