Economic Instruments for the Circular Economy in Italy

5. Review of relevant policies in Italy

Abstract

Italy’s Strategy for the Circular Economy calls for an enhanced use of economic instruments to promote the circular economy. Stronger price signals can help steer production and consumption towards more sustainable choices, boost markets for secondary raw materials, and stimulate green innovation and infrastructural investments.

This chapter assesses the state of existing economic instruments in Italy and compares them to international good practices presented in Chapter 4, to identify potential avenues for the enhanced use of these instruments. Opportunities for reform or the uptake of new instruments are further explored in Chapter 6.

5.1. Introduction

As also evidenced by Italy’s Strategy for the Circular Economy, an enhanced use of economic instruments can play an important role in promoting the circular economy. Stronger price signals can help steer production and consumption towards more sustainable choices, boost markets for secondary raw materials, and promote green innovation and infrastructural investments. This chapter assesses the state of existing instruments and compares them to international good practices to identify potential opportunities for the enhanced use of these instruments. This chapter focuses solely on economic instruments already in place in Italy, while opportunities for the uptake of new instruments are explored in Chapter 6.

5.2. Fees on extractive activities

Although Italy is not considered rich in raw materials, such as metal ores and fossil fuels, the country ranks fifth in the EU in the extraction of non-metallic minerals (after Germany, Romania, France and Poland) (Eurostat, 2023[1]). Italy’s National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) has identified 3 580 active quarrying sites as of 2018 (of which 2 094 were used for extraction in the same year), and 120 actives mines (of which 75 were used in 2018). About half of the quarries are located in the north of the country.1

Quarrying accounts for 92% of total extracted non-metallic mineral resources. In 2021, 184 Mt of materials were extracted from quarrying sites, one-fifth more than in 2017 (ISTAT, 2023[2]). As shown in Figure ‎5.1, these are mostly limestone (45% by weight), and sand and gravel (36%). These are generally considered as relatively low-unit value materials, which are, nonetheless, important for many economic sectors, including construction.

Figure ‎5.1. Limestone, sand and gravel account for the majority of quarried minerals (by weight)

Share of mineral resources extracted from quarries (unit of weight), data for 2021

Source: (ISTAT, 2023[2]).

Italy has established fees on extractive activities, which are defined and implemented by regions. In most cases, fees are calculated per cubic metre (m³) of minerals extracted. Revenues are collected and managed at the sub-national level. Table ‎5.1 presents the fee rates applied in each region by type of material extracted. Fee rates vary widely across the country, with three regions (Valle d’Aosta, Basilicata and Sardegna) not enforcing any fees. Existing fees on extractive activities are likely to generate limited revenues for the public budget of local entities. Annual revenues are estimated at EUR 50.5 million.

Due to their design and intended purpose, these fees are too low to generate meaningful price signals against the extraction of virgin materials. Where present, the fees on extractive activities only intend to cover the direct and indirect costs of the land use impacts caused by quarrying activities and to protect the landscape. Taking the example of sand and gravel, fee rates imposed in selected Italian regions are comparable to royalties in place in other OECD countries. However, the average rate remains well below tax rates imposed in front-runner countries, such as Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Table ‎5.1. Royalty payments applied and revenues generated in Italian regions

Estimates of fee rates (EUR/m³) and total revenues (thousand EUR)

Region / Autonomous Province	Sand and gravel	Ornamental stones	Peat	Limestone	Clay	Revenues
Piemonte	0.51	0.85	0.57	0.57	0.57	3 457
Valle d’Aosta	0	0	0	0	0	0
Liguria	1.30	0.16	0	0.24	0.30	206
Lombardia	0.70	5.30	1.65	0.49	0.55	15 034
A.P. Trento	0.672	1.79	0.52	0.52	0.45	1 977
A.P. Bolzano-Bozen	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	496
Veneto	0.62	0.75	0.31	0.36	0.52	3 158
Friuli-Venezia Giulia	0.55	0.65	0	0.67	0.20	1 039
Emilia-Romagna	0.70	0.32	1.26	0.60	0.60	3 305
Toscana	0.50	1.79	0.30	0.50	0.23	2 346
Umbria	0.25	0.45	0	0.35	0.35	1 038
Marche	0.71	0.80	0	1.00	0.42	1 211
Lazio	0.30	2.00	0.30	0.50	0.30	2 758
Abruzzo	1.33	10.30	0	0.80	0.66	3 244
Molise	1.00	2.00	0.50	0.30	0.50	1 718
Campania	1.25	1.67	0	1.01	0.95	2 177
Puglia	0.081	0.11	0.08	0.11	0.07	686
Basilicata	0	0	0	0	0	0
Calabria	0.35	1.05	0.30	0.40	0.45	1 137
Sicilia	0.672	1.79	0.52	0.52	0.45	5 488
Sardegna	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total						50 475
Average fee	0.57	1.54	0.32	0.45	0.38
Average fee, excluding regions not enforcing any fees	0.67	1.79	0.38	0.52	0.45

1. In the A.P. of Trento, the fee on extractive activities is set on a case-by-case basis.

2. In Puglia and Sicilia, fees are also calculated, in part, according to the surface size of the extraction sites.

Source: (MiTE, 2021[3]).

5.3. Regulation on plastics and plastic tax (not yet in force)

Italy transposed the Single-Use Plastics (SUP) Directive through its Leg. Decree 2021/196, which entered into force on 14 January 2022.2 In consideration of existing domestic chains of organic waste collection and the growing production of compostable plastics, Italy has exempted single-use plastic products from the ban if they are biodegradable and compostable (according to standards UNI EN 13432 or UNI EN 14995) and contain renewable raw materials of at least 60% (as of January 2024). To be eligible for the exemption, products must also fulfil one of the conditions listed in Article 5 of the decree, broadly relating to the intended use of the products (e.g. irreplaceability with reusable alternatives), the high likelihood of using SUPs in controlled environments (e.g. canteens, hospitals), or the presence of specific food safety requirements.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, the EU plastics own resource entered into force in January 2021. Each member state shall contribute EUR 0.80 per kilogram of non-recycled plastic packaging waste generated. Italy generated 2.3 Mt of plastic packaging waste in 2018, of which only 43.4% was recycled (Eurostat, 2022[4]; Eurostat, 2022[5]). Taking into account annual lump sum reductions granted to selected EU countries,3 Italy’s annual contributions would amount to approximately EUR 850 million.4 This amount is being deducted from the public budget.

In 2019, Italy announced a plastic tax to be implemented through a decree of the Italian Customs Agency (Law 160/2019).5 The entry into force of the tax has faced a series of delays and is now planned for 1 July 2024. The instrument is envisaged as a virgin material tax (of EUR 0.45 /kg, only applying to virgin polymers) to incentivise the shift to recycled materials. The tax will only target single-use products and packaging considered particularly harmful to the environment, including non-reusable plastic packaging (such as food packaging and plastic films) and certain SUP products (such as plastic beverage bottles). In line with Italian legislation on SUPs, specific derogations are foreseen for biodegradable and compostable plastics.6 Recycled content is to be certified through existing certification schemes accredited by the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security (MASE), which are already used to verify compliance with green public procurement (GPP) criteria.

A timely implementation of the plastic tax could help to discourage the use of virgin plastics, while further promoting circularity in the plastics packaging sector. As an increasing number of countries adopt plastic taxes, additional data availability and lessons learned should help to identify their economic and environmental impacts, as well as the need for any future adjustments in the design and implementation of the instrument.

5.4. Support for R&D and innovation

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy introduced several measures to create and strengthen incentives to promote investments in research and development (R&D) and green innovation, and to steer production and consumption towards green growth and digitalisation. The National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) allocated EUR 2.1 billion for investments in waste management infrastructure (EUR 1.5 billion) as well as investments in pilot projects related to the circular economy (EUR 0.6 billion).7

The new industrial plan “Transition 4.0” introduced a series of fiscal measures to support green and digital innovation, which are also relevant to support the transition to a circular economy.8 These include:

• Tax credits for investments in capital goods: to encourage companies to invest in new capital goods that are functional to the technological and digital transformation of production processes for Italian production sites.

• Tax credits for research, development and innovation: to stimulate spending on research, development and technological innovation in order to make businesses competitive and to encourage the digital transition towards a circular economy and environmental sustainability.

• Tax credits “Training 4.0”: to incentivise companies to train their staff in technologies and skills relevant to the technological and digital transformation of businesses.

Projects related to environmental innovation and the circular economy can also benefit from numerous funding opportunities at the EU, national and sub-national level. Italy makes use of EU funding in the form of grants and/or loans to support R&D projects (e.g. Horizon Europe), some of which are relevant to the transition to a circular economy. At the national level, in 2020, the Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy (MIMIT) launched a new financing fund of EUR 220 million to promote R&D initiatives related to the circular economy.9 To be eligible for funding, projects must propose the conversion of economic activities towards a circular economy, such as innovation for the efficient use of resources and waste recovery, industrial symbiosis initiatives, technologies extending the lifespan of products, and innovation in the packaging sector (MiSE, n.d.[6]). Several funding opportunities also exist at the sub-national level. For instance, in 2021 and 2022, the region of Lombardia called for proposals related to innovation in circular economy value-chains, with the main objective to support material recovery and eco-design (Regione Lombardia, 2021[7]; Unioncamere Lombardia, 2022[8]).10

5.5. Corporate income tax incentives to promote circularity

Italy has announced or introduced a series of corporate income tax (CIT) incentives for enterprises, mainly in the form of tax credits, to discourage the use of virgin materials in production processes and to incentivise the shift to recycled or compostable materials (corporate tax credits are discussed in more detail in Chapter 10). Recent measures include:

1. Tax credits on recovered materials, which corresponded to 36% of expenses incurred by enterprises in 2019 and 2020 (up to a maximum annual amount of EUR 20 000) for the purchase of:

• Finished products from the waste sorting of plastics.

• Biodegradable and compostable primary and secondary packaging.

• Packaging derived from the waste sorting of paper, plastics or aluminium (2019 Budget Law and MiTE Decree of 14 December 202111).

2. Tax credits on recycled intermediary and final products, which corresponded to 25% of expenses incurred in 2020 (up to a maximum annual amount of EUR 10 000) for the purchase of:

• Semi-finished and finished products composed (of at least 75%) of materials from the recycling of waste or scrap materials.

• Quality compost derived from the treatment of organic waste (Leg. Decree 34/2019 and MiTE Decree 6 October 2021)12.

Available information on the first measure indicates significant uptake, with demand for the tax credit largely outweighing the allocated resources. As a consequence, the measure was re-financed for the years 2023 and 2024 (and also extended to glass packaging from waste collection), and the allocated budget therefore increased. In contrast, the second measure was discontinued after 2020; available information indicates low uptake.

Additionally, in 2021, MASE announced the introduction of a tax credit for the purchase of alternatives to SUPs, either reusable alternatives or options made from biodegradable or compostable materials (Leg. Decree 196/2021).13 Tax credits would correspond to 20% of expenses incurred in 2022, 2023 and 2024, up to a maximum annual amount of EUR 10 000 per beneficiary. At the time of writing, the measure is in the implementation phase. Moreover, planned tax credits were conceived in conjunction with the plastic tax that would support technological upgrades in the plastic packaging manufacturing sector for production processes to shift to compostable plastics (2020 Budget Law).14 However, as the entry into force of the plastics tax faced delays, the tax credits have not been implemented.

Beyond corporate tax credits to promote the purchase of secondary and compostable materials, other measures envisaged included financial support to incentivise the reuse or recycling of packaging by companies, applied when companies return packaging to suppliers and when suppliers reuse packaging or separately collect it for recycling (Law Decree 34/2019).15 The measure was planned for 2020 but it was discontinued the following year (MASE, 2022[9]). Additionally, in 2022, MASE announced a non-repayable contribution of a maximum amount of EUR 5 000 to reimburse enterprises for their expenses made in the years 2020 and 2021 related to the purchase of equipment required for the sale of loose products. This measure sought to encourage commercial enterprises to reduce the use of packaging and to sell products in bulk (MiTE Decree 22 September 2021).16 Available information indicates a lower level of uptake than the allocated resources, likely due to the limited incentive and the fact that the mechanism referred to investments made in the past and was thus inadequate in generating additional investments.

5.6. Fiscal measures to reduce waste generation

Since 2016, Italy has had in place an “anti-waste” law to facilitate and incentivise donations to charities and food banks (Law No. 166/2016).17 Donated goods are not subject to VAT, and their upstream expenses can be deducted from corporate or income taxes, e.g. distributors can deduct the costs of purchase while producers can deduct the costs of raw materials and labour. Donors may also be granted reductions in the waste disposal tax owed to municipalities for an amount that should be proportional to the amount of donated goods. While the measure initially only covered donations of food and medicines, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the fiscal incentives were also extended to other categories of unsold goods (Law Decree 18/2020).18 In line with this law, Milan was one of the first cities (already in 2018) to introduce a cut in the waste tax for commercial and public entities that donate surplus food, and around 10 000 businesses have already benefited from the waste tax reduction (OECD, 2020[10]).

Since 2018, companies and individuals that donate goods to not-for-profit organisations may benefit from tax relief, mainly in the form of tax deductions corresponding up to 10% of the declared income (Leg. Decree 117/2017).19 As the collection, preparation for reuse, and sale of used goods (e.g. clothing, furniture, toys) is often carried out by registered not-for-profit social enterprises, this tax relief contributes to waste prevention. Although the measure does not necessarily differentiate between new and used goods, it may help to reduce pre-consumption waste by incentivising donation over the environmentally harmful disposal of unsold merchandise.20

5.7. Consumer product taxes and charges

Italy has introduced a number of product taxes relevant to the circular economy, such as excise duties on mineral oils and energy products (e.g. natural gas, coal, diesel, fuel oil) (OECD, 2022[11]). Currently, there is no specific product tax on disposable or hard-to-recycle products, other than environmental contribution fees applied through EPR schemes (i.e. on batteries and electrical and electronic equipment). Consumers are charged for the use of light plastic bags; however, this is more about restricting a free supply than imposing product taxes (Law Decree 91/2017).21

Italy could potentially consider the use of additional product taxes to act as advance disposal fees for products with high end-of-life costs or products that are hard-to-recycle if these are not already covered by other incentive schemes (for example, EPR or a deposit refund system). Most other EU Member States have made only limited use of product taxes, most of which are applied to SUPs, tyres, batteries or household electronics. Currently, most of these products are either regulated through EPR or are/will be banned from the market, thus, there is no need to impose additional product taxes on these products, as long as the existing systems work effectively at financing their end-of-life treatment.

However, product taxes could be considered for selected hard-to-recycle products that are currently not regulated, but which are expected to be in the future. Examples include clothing made of certain composite fibres or furniture manufactured with materials that cannot easily be separated for recycling. The product tax could be implemented as an advance disposal fee to cover end-of-life costs or, alternatively, as a refundable tax that promotes the collection of end-of-life products. In these cases, Italy would need to assess what combination of policy instruments (e.g. EPR or product tax) would be most appropriate to internalise the end-of-life treatment costs of such products.

5.8. Household waste charges, including pay-as-you-throw

As outlined in Chapter 3, waste policies are implemented at the sub-national level in line with national framework legislation and the National Waste Management Plan. Waste management is financed by a local waste charge (“TARI”) payable by all households and companies generating waste. The waste charge shall implement the polluter pays principle and fully cover the costs of waste collection and management incurred by municipalities.

Municipalities set the rates of the local waste charge on the basis of national guidelines. The Regulatory Authority for Energy, Networks and the Environment (ARERA) regulates waste charges (2018 Budget Law). The first tariff calculation method for integrated waste management services, defined for the period 2020/21, aimed to incentivise improvements in waste collection, treatment and disposal. It also set out to harmonise rules across the country for operators, municipalities and regional authorities, to improve coherence between tariffs and the quality of the service, and to guarantee transparency to users (ARERA, 2019[12]).

Local waste charges are generally composed of a fixed component (based on the building surface area and, in the case of residential uses, the number of inhabitants) and a variable component to cover waste collection, sorting and disposal costs, as well as the costs of road sweeping and cleaning. Reductions in the waste charge may be granted to enterprises and public entities that adopt virtuous behaviour aligned with lower waste management costs, for instance, in the case of donations of surplus food or in the case of measures to compost organic waste.

In line with the Waste Framework Directive (WFD)22, municipalities may set up pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) systems and apply a PAYT tariff instead of the standard charge. Introduced in Italian legislation in 201423, PAYT is a system that links waste management fees to the amount of waste produced by each household. In the Italian PAYT system, variable fees are linked to the weight or volume of the non-recyclable waste fraction, and sometimes also include the waste fractions destined for recycling. Similarly to the standard charge, a PAYT tax or tariff shall fully cover the waste management costs. However, while the standard fee represents a fixed charge for households, which is not dependent on their behaviour, the PAYT fee creates an economic incentive for households to minimise their waste management costs by better separating waste.

Several regions have introduced regional legislation to accelerate the transition to PAYT systems. For instance, since 2015, Emilia-Romagna introduced a series of economic incentives and supporting measures to promote the transition to PAYT systems in all municipalities. As of January 2020, 27% of municipalities (corresponding to 34% of the population) had PAYT systems in place (Ambiente Regione Emilia Romagna, 2020[13]). Other regions also have relevant initiatives: i) Friuli-Venezia Giulia promotes sustainable consumption and lifestyles aimed at reducing waste production and encouraging the application of PAYT by municipalities; ii) Piemonte acknowledges the importance of the PAYT system for reducing waste production, reuse and minimising the amount of diverted urban waste; iii) Campania provides economic incentives (in the form of tariff bonuses) to municipalities with the best results in terms of waste reduction, separate waste collection and recycling.

The dissemination of PAYT systems remains low at the national level, but it has been rapidly expanding in recent years. The 2021 ISPRA survey (2021[14]) identified 872 municipalities with a PAYT system in place as of 2019 (11% of total), corresponding to 6.5 million inhabitants (10.8% of the total population). There are important territorial differences in the distribution of PAYT systems, with the vast majority (96.7%) of municipalities with a PAYT system in place located in the North of Italy, especially in Trentino Alto Adige / Südtirol (86% of population covered), Veneto (39%), Emilia-Romagna (34%), Friuli-Venezia Giulia (21%) and Lombardia (11%). Conversely, PAYT schemes only cover 3.8% of the population of regions in the Centre, and 0.2% of the population in the South.

Generally, there is a correlation between the waste charge model applied at the local level and the levels of waste generation and quality of sorting. Municipalities located in the north of the country, where most municipalities with a PAYT system are located, perform better in terms of recycling rates for municipal waste and in landfilling rates. This is evidenced by the results of the “Comuni Ricicloni” initiative, a programme sponsored by MASE, which rewards municipalities that have achieved the best results in waste management, mainly in terms of separate collections sent for recycling. The 2022 edition recorded 590 Italian municipalities where waste production was below 75 kg/capita (Comuni Ricicloni, 2022[15]).

Extending the coverage of PAYT models for waste collection could enable a better implementation of the polluter pays principle and generate significant incentives to improve sorting at source for higher recycling rates of municipal waste. Shifting to a PAYT system may also contribute to reducing local waste management costs. An assessment of ISPRA municipal waste data conducted by MASE (2019[16]) observed that per capita waste management costs in municipalities with a PAYT system in place were lower than the regional average.

Chapter 6 further discusses options to accelerate the introduction of PAYT across the national territory.

5.9. Landfill taxes

Italy’s landfill tax, first introduced in national legislation in 1996 (Law 549/95), has the primary aim of discouraging disposal in landfills and incentivising material and energy recovery. The tax is charged on any entity that sends solid waste or sludge to a landfill or to an incineration plant without energy recovery. The tax rates vary by waste type, i.e. hazardous or non-hazardous, municipal or non-municipal waste. National regulation defines the upper and lower level of the tax for each waste category, but the precise landfill tax rates and destination of the revenues are determined at the regional level (ETC/SCP, 2012[17]).

Current legislation states that operators pay the proceeds directly to the regions, with a share going to the municipalities where the landfills are located (or to nearby municipalities that may be negatively affected by their presence). Revenues to municipalities shall be earmarked for environmental protection, health and sanitary interventions, and measures for waste treatment and prevention. Revenues to regions shall be used to support waste reduction goals, material and energy recovery objectives, land reclamation projects or for protected areas.

Landfill tax rates are summarised in Table ‎5.2 for all regions. Additionally, some regions have bonus/malus systems in place granting up to 70% fee reductions, depending on the recycling rates achieved by municipalities (e.g. Abruzzo, Liguria, Lombardia, Marche, Puglia, Sardegna, Toscana, Valle d’Aosta and Veneto), and the quantities of pro-capita non-recyclable waste generated (Lombardia, Autonomous Province Bolzano-Bozen) (REF Ricerche, 2020[18]; Legambiente, 2019[19]).

Despite wide regional differences in the tax rates applied, most regional landfill taxes are significantly below the European average and are likely too low to discourage landfilling. Although there has been a decrease in landfilled waste since the introduction of the landfill tax in 1996, this was not accompanied by a progressive and robust increase in landfill tax rates in most regions. For municipal waste, tax rates range from EUR 5.17/tonne in Molise and EUR 5.2/tonne in Campania to the maximum allowed rate of EUR 25.82/tonne. For comparison, examples of landfill tax rates in other EU countries are EUR 87/tonne in Austria, between EUR 2.34 and EUR 175 per tonne in Flanders, between EUR 39.93 and EUR 51.66/tonne in Poland (for municipal waste), and EUR 17/tonne in the Netherlands (where landfilling has a minimal role) (OECD, 2022[11]).

Due to its design and implementation, the policy instrument has ensured that landfill disposal is an economically viable option in most regions. Although average landfill costs (i.e. the gate fees,24 which usually include the landfill tax on top of the costs of landfilling) have increased in recent years, and are generally aligned with the European average (EUR 110 per tonne in 2019, up from EUR 90 in 2013), they remain substantially below the average in selected regions (Legambiente, 2019[19]). Furthermore, landfill taxes often do not generate sufficient revenues for local entities to support much-needed investments in waste management infrastructure, reinforcing the vicious cycle that maintains landfilling as an economically viable option for waste disposal (REF Ricerche, 2020[18]).

Table ‎5.2. Landfill tax rates in Italian regions

Region / A.P.	Municipal waste (EUR/t)	Inert waste (EUR/t)	Non-hazardous non-municipal waste (EUR/t)	Hazardous waste (EUR/t)
Molise	5.17	10	5.17	25.82
Campania	5.2	2.7	10	20
Calabria	5.33	10.33	20.66	25.82
Lazio	10.33	2.07	10.33	-
Abruzzo	11	3	10	20
A.P. Bolzano	11.4	1.55	6.2	6.2
Sicilia	12.36	1.24	6.24	6.24
A.P. Trento	12.86	1.17	5.85	5.85
Piemonte	12.91	9	12.91	19
Emilia-Romagna	15	9	11	25.82
Liguria	15	5	10	15
Lombardia	17	4	17	17
Puglia	17.24	6.5	10	20
Sardegna	18	1	7.7	10.3
Valle d’Aosta	18	1.03	5.16	10.33
Basilicata	20	10	10	10
Toscana	21	7.33	15	15
Marche	25	9	12	24
Friuli-Venezia Giulia	25.82	1.03	5.17	25.82
Umbria	25.82	10.33	5.16	5.16
Veneto	25.82	1.03	10.33	20.66
Average	15.73	5.06	9.80	16.40

Note: A.P. stands for Autonomous Province.

Source: Based on REF Ricerche (2020[18]).

5.10. Extended Producer Responsibility

The principle of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was introduced in Italian legislation in 2006.25 EPR schemes exist for end-of-life vehicles, waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), batteries, accumulators and packaging (mandatory in the EU as mandated by directives for WEEE, batteries, end-of-life vehicles, packaging and packaging waste) and lubricant oils. Additionally, an EPR scheme for the fashion industry is currently in the implementation phase. Italian EPR schemes have successfully helped to increase waste collection and recycling rates, helping the country to stay on good track to meet its recycling targets for 2025 and 2035.

Italian EPR schemes are generally organised collectively through producer responsibility organisations (PROs) that manage the collection and treatment of end-of-life products in exchange for fee contributions paid by individual producers. For instance, all companies producing and using packaging must adhere to the national PRO for packaging, the Consorzio Nazionale Imballaggi (CONAI). CONAI co-ordinates activities of the material-specific consortia (e.g. COREPLA for plastics, Biorepack for compostable plastic packaging, COMIECO for paper and cardboard, RILEGNO for wood) and is financed by EPR fees applied to packaging.

EPR schemes in Italy have contributed to alleviating the financial burden of waste management on municipalities. For instance, EPR fees paid to CONAI in 2019 covered 92% of the costs (net of revenues from the sale of recovered materials) of collecting, sorting and recycling waste or energy recovery of packaging waste. If costs related to the management of the PRO are included, EPR fees covered 84% of net costs.26

The Italian EPR scheme for packaging includes advanced fee modulation for selected material types (see Table ‎5.3). Fees for plastic packaging vary depending on the origin (industry or households), its recyclability and ease of sorting, and the availability of technologies and recycling chains. An EPR fee for biodegradable and compostable plastic packaging was introduced in July 2021. Likewise, since 2019, a differentiated fee applies to paper packaging: an additional EUR 20/t is charged on paper-dominated poly-packaging suitable for liquid containment to promote the creation of a recycling chain for this material. Reduced rates (up to 85%) exist for reusable packaging, but this is limited to selected controlled circuits (Laubinger et al., 2021[20]).

Table ‎5.3. Overview of modulated EPR fees for packaging, as of 1 April 2024

Material	Category	Rate
Paper	1: Single-material packaging and paper-dominated multi-packaging	EUR 65 /t
	2: Paper-dominated poly-packaging suitable for liquid containment	EUR 45 /t
	Multi-packaging (share of paper between 60% and 80%)	EUR 175 /t
	Multi-packaging (share of paper below 60% or not declared)	EUR 305 /t
Plastics	Level A1: Packaging mainly from the Commerce & Industry (C&I) circuit, with an effective and consolidated sorting and recycling chain	A1.1: EUR 24 /t A1.2: EUR 90 /t
	Level A2: Packaging mainly from the Commerce & Industry (C&I) circuit, with an effective and consolidated sorting and recycling chain, but with a significant presence in municipal waste	A2: EUR 220 /t
	Level B1: Packaging from the “Household” circuit, with an effective and consolidated sorting and recycling chain	B1.1: EUR 224 /t B1.2: EUR 233 /t
	Level B2: Other sortable and recyclable packaging from the Household and C&I circuits	EUR 441-650 /t
	Level C: Packaging not sortable/recyclable with current technologies	EUR 655 /t
Compostable plastics	Biodegradable and compostable plastic packaging	EUR 130 /t

Notes: EPR fees are regularly updated and were most recently increased on 1 April 2024. The categorisation of waste is also regularly updated, in line with advancements in sorting and recycling technologies.

Source: (CONAI, 2024[21]).

Further use of EPR fee modulation for packaging could incentivise better eco-design, including recycling efforts. Designing for easier recyclability is a key aspect to consider in the eco-design of packaging to improve both the quantities and quality of materials being recycled. Italy could explore options to expand the use of advanced fee modulation for packaging types where basic fee modulation still applies (i.e. for packaging other than plastics and paper), including hard-to-recycle packaging.

The modulation of EPR fees based on recycled material content could be explored to further promote demand for recycled content. Italy already implements minimum recycled content requirements for packaging through GPP criteria and will introduce mandatory standards for plastic bottle recycled content by 2025. With the introduction of modulated EPR fees in line with recycled material content, products that verifiably meet thresholds for recycled content could receive a bonus, resulting in a lowered fee. In other OECD countries, PROs have started to use incentives for recycled content. For example, in France, a 50% fee reduction is provided for PE and PP packaging with at least 50% recycled content (CITEO, 2019[22]; Laubinger et al., 2021[20]). In Italy, targeting the recycled content of packaging through bonus/malus systems could help to mainstream the use of recycled content across the packaging sector. Gradual increases in recycled content requirements may well continue to provide meaningful incentives for integrating more recycled content into products.

As in many other EU countries, Italian EPR schemes have not provided sufficient incentives to move towards waste prevention and to improve eco-design for lower environmental impacts along the product’s life cycle. Where EPR schemes are organised collectively, with EPR fees set on a per unit or per weight basis (basic fee modulation), producers generally see only a limited link between the design of their products and the fee contributions paid to PROs. As a result, financial incentives for producers to invest in circular design remain limited in most cases (Brown, Laubinger and Börkey, 2023[23]).

To overcome the shortcomings of EPR schemes in providing incentives for eco-design and waste prevention, the revised EU WFD mandates that EPR fees should, where possible, be modulated on the basis of relevant criteria (advanced fee modulation), including for durability, reparability, reusability, recyclability, and the presence of hazardous substances (European Union, 2018[24]). Advanced fee modulation increases the specificity of producer fees through a more granular allocation of end-of-life costs (i.e. through higher and lower fees) or a system of bonus/malus adjustments. In order to ensure a certain degree of cross-country harmonisation in fee modulation, the European Commission has been developing technical guidance to support implementation in Member States. Box ‎5.1 provides further information on the new EU requirements for EPR schemes and their transposition into Italian legislation.

Box ‎5.1. New EU-wide requirements for EPR schemes

The 2018 Circular Economy Package introduced a series of changes to further improve the design and implementation of national EPR schemes, in particular, to overcome the shortcomings of EPR in terms of incentivising eco-design, and also to help harmonise existing systems across member countries. In line with the revised WFD, all EU Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that environmental contributions paid by producers are modulated, where possible, for individual products, or groups of similar products, notably, by taking into account their durability, reparability, re-usability and recyclability, and the presence of hazardous substances.

In Italy, the transposition of the EU WFD introduced important legislative changes for EPR schemes. It extended the definition of “producer” to additional categories of stakeholders along the value chain, it facilitated procedures for the establishment of new EPR schemes, it established a National Registry of Producers to improve transparency, and it mandated that the financial contribution of producers should cover all costs (at least 80%) of waste collection, transport and treatment, as well as information and prevention measures (Leg. Decree 2020/116)1. New EU minimum requirements for EPR will have to be integrated into national EPR schemes by the end of 2024.

1. Legislative Decree 116/2020 on waste and packaging (amending Leg. Decree 152/2006) implements i) Directive (EU) 2018/851 amending Directive 2008/98/EC relating to waste, and ii) Directive (EU) 2018/852 amending directive 1994/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.

While EPR schemes have primarily focused on minimising end-of-life management costs and improving recycling, there is growing consensus that the concept of EPR holds untapped potential to implement the waste hierarchy, specifically to promote waste prevention and reuse. New requirements for EPR schemes set at the EU level should contribute to promoting the design and manufacturing of higher-quality and longer-lasting products, including electronics, batteries and other product groups covered by EPR schemes.

The effective expansion of EPR to cover additional aspects related to the life cycle of products would necessitate substantial shifts in the design and setting of EPR fees in terms of how EPR schemes work, the cost coverage and revenue use. Currently, the financial objective for EPR schemes is to cover in full the end-of-life “efficient” management costs of products and packaging, and to incentivise producers to minimise these costs by facilitating waste sorting and recycling. Although the WFD already envisioned that EPR shall also cover costs related to waste prevention, in practice, the logic of minimisation of end-of-life costs leaves little room for financing measures aimed at fostering eco-design beyond better recyclability or the increased use of recycled materials (Sachdeva, Araujo and Hirschnitz-Garbers, 2021[25]).

Some EU countries have begun exploring options to assign financial responsibility to producers for costs beyond end-of-life management and for additional externalities associated with the life cycle of products or packaging, such as covering the costs of litter clean-up in the case of packaging, or repair in the case of electrical and electronic equipment or textiles (Brown, Laubinger and Börkey, 2023[23]). For instance, France is introducing repair and reuse funds financed by PROs to cover part of the costs of product repairs, which are typically paid in full by consumers (see Box ‎5.2).

Reforms to complementary policy instruments that support the implementation of EPR may also be needed to ensure a comprehensive policy mix and consistent incentives for waste prevention and reuse. In particular, “binding reuse targets” could help create the right regulatory framework that prioritises waste prevention. Within EPR schemes, PROs could implement this shift in multiple ways, such as by setting reuse targets for producers, establishing reuse systems, or modulating EPR fees based on reusability. At the same time, a good co-ordination and alignment of EPR with an advanced fee modulated with interrelated economic instruments, such as GPP, is needed to ensure that the policy mix effectively delivers on its intended waste prevention and recycling objectives.

Box ‎5.2. Recent reforms to French EPR schemes to incentivise eco-design and promote repair

With its 2020 anti-waste law for a circular economy, France announced reforms to EPR schemes aimed at enhancing the use of this instrument to promote eco-design and to extend the lifespan of products, in particular, by supporting repair and reuse. The reforms include more ambitious targets, especially to reinforce reuse, repair and reuse targets, and to modify the penalty system for eco-organisations. The reform also modified bonus and malus criteria to encourage design-for-environment. All product groups covered by an EPR scheme will include bonuses and penalties to help achieve the respective recycling, durability or reparability targets. For instance, there is a 75% bonus given for clothing, home textiles, and footwear that meet durability design requirements, lowering the EPR fee liability for these products (ECO-TLC, 2019[26]).

Additionally, the reform mandates the creation of repair and reuse funds for product groups covered by EPR schemes, including EEE, toys, sport and leisure equipment, DIY and garden equipment, furniture and textiles. Repair and reuse funds will be financed by producers through contributions equal to at least 5% of their EPR contributions. The repair funds, monitored by companies and PROs, will need to guarantee lower costs of repair to consumers who go to repair shops accredited by the EPR organisation. Beyond reducing the price, such a system also aims to structure the repair offer, thus rendering repair more visible to consumers and ensuring minimum standards of quality in repair services. The reuse funds aim to support social economy actors who give a second life to products, thus promoting employment, social integration, as well as the development of circular solutions.

Source: (ADEME, 2022[27]).

Responsibility for monitoring compliance with EPR obligations sits with MASE. All producers with EPR obligations are required to register with the relevant National Registry of Producers and, either individually or collectively, submit relevant information including data on volumes placed on the market, on collection and treatment activities carried out, and on the EPR costs covered (or EPR fees paid). Monitoring and vigilance costs are covered by producers (Leg. Decree 152/2006).

There are opportunities to enhance the implementation and governance of EPR schemes, including to reduce free riding. Free riders are producers who benefit from EPR systems without contributing their share of the costs (Lifset, Atasu and Tojo, 2013[28]). Non-compliance with EPR obligations is particularly an issue in online retailing, especially for the EEE product category (Hilton et al., 2019[29]). According to estimates by Eucolight (European Association of PROs for WEEE lighting), 81% of lamps, 69% of washing machines, 92% of fitness trackers and 86% of tablets sold in Italy do not comply with EPR obligations (OPTIME, 2021[30]). In the absence of stronger policy intervention, this issue is expected to worsen as the share of e-commerce in total retail sales continues to rise.27

As EU countries consider expanding the use of advanced fee modulation, mitigating free ridership becomes increasingly relevant to ensure that revenues are guaranteed despite the additional complexity of compliance (Laubinger et al., 2021[20]). Options to consider include awareness-raising measures to support more widespread compliance, strengthened monitoring and enforcement of EPR regulations, as well as easily understandable and verifiable modulation criteria (Hilton et al., 2019[29]; Laubinger et al., 2021[20]). Selected good practices from other countries in mitigating free riding on EPR obligations are outlined in Box ‎5.3.

Box ‎5.3. Selected good practices to reduce free riding in EPR schemes

France: compliance assurance through multi-seller platforms

France’s Anti-Waste Law for a Circular Economy includes specific provisions for online selling platforms to tackle free riding on EPR obligations, specifically for the EEE sector. France now requires all retailers selling products on online multi-seller platforms to register with the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) to obtain a unique identification number (UID). This identification number serves as proof of compliance with producers’ obligations and must be communicated to the online platforms. While the duty to comply with EPR obligations remains with producers, the law now places the onus directly on multi-seller platforms that must now prove that retailers are participating in EPR schemes or risk having to pay the EPR contribution themselves.

German EPR scheme for packaging: central register for all packaging PROs

The Packaging Act (VerpackG) of 2019 introduced a number of new requirements for the packaging EPR scheme and instituted the Central Agency Packaging Register (ZSVR) to increase transparency and ensure compliance with EPR requirements. All producers placing packaging on the German market are now required to register on this web-based, public register. If a producer is not registered, it may be banned from distributing its products, or be subject to fines of up to EUR 200 000 (Prevent Waste, 2020[31]).

Source: (Sachdeva, Araujo and Hirschnitz-Garbers, 2021[25]).

5.11. Green public procurement

Green public procurement (GPP) has a long-established role in the EU policy and legal framework: it was first introduced with the 2004 EU Directives on Public Procurement28 and later strengthened with the 2014 EU Directives on Public Procurement.29 It is a voluntary instrument in the EU. Currently, the European Commission develops EU GPP criteria for selected products and services to support the inclusion of green requirements in public tender documents and to set a non-binding level of ambition for greening purchasing activities. However, the new EU Circular Economy Action Plan introduced the ambition to establish common mandatory GPP criteria.

Public procurement approaches have a large potential to contribute to the transition to a sustainable and circular economy in Italy, where public procurement represents 11.8% of the GDP and 21.2% of total government expenditures (OECD, 2021[32]). Furthermore, most of the funds from the NRRP are channelled through public procurement, as shown in Figure ‎5.2.

Figure ‎5.2. Investment dominates spending plans

Funds spending (% of GDP)

Note: Only includes the Recovery and Resilience funds, grants and loans.

Source: (Ministry of Economy and Finance, 2021[33]) and OECD calculations.

Italy recognises the key role that public procurement approaches can play to support the country’s transition towards a circular economy. The National Action Plan on GPP, first approved in 2008 and last updated in 2023, establishes a national framework to support the dissemination and implementation of GPP. Since 2016, all public entities, at all levels of government, must apply minimum environmental criteria (“Criteri Ambientali Minimi”, CAM) during the procurement of selected goods and services of any market value.30 Moreover, in product groups where the most economically advantageous tender criteria are applied, contracting authorities employ “award environmental criteria” that improve the evaluation score for a specific product or service.

MASE defines and updates CAM, which are informed by existing EU GPP criteria and other reference documents, market analyses for the relevant sector, as well as information collected from stakeholders. CAM are to be defined for some or all the stages of the procurement procedure, including the subject matter of the contract, the technical specifications, the award criteria, and the contractual clauses. Moreover, each criterion shall also include information on the appropriate means, documents and mechanisms to verify compliance (MiTE, 2021[34]). As of December 2023, MASE has adopted CAM for 20 categories of goods and services.

Various existing CAM integrate circularity principles and include recycled content requirements. For instance, all public construction interventions require circular specifications for the materials used in the construction project.31 The GPP criteria for interior and urban furniture include minimum recycled content requirements for paper and cardboard packaging (80%) and plastic packaging (60%) (CONAI, ReMade in Italy, 2021[35]). In other cases, the presence of recycled content constitutes an award criterion that improves the evaluation score for the product or service in question. This is the case, for instance, of GPP for textile products and services.32 Existing labelling and certification schemes enable companies to declare compliance with GPP criteria, such as the “ReMade in Italy” certification for recycled content. Additional circular principles used in CAM relate to the promotion of products as a service, such as in the case of printing management services or increasing repairability or disassembly.

Overall, the use of GPP in Italy is advanced and, in recent years, significant efforts have been made to define and regularly update CAM, including to further integrate circular principles. The National Strategy for the Circular Economy has emphasised the ambition to further strengthen the use of GPP, including by increasing uptake and enhancing the technical capacity of contracting authorities to adopt CAM in public tenders (MiTE, 2022[36]). Although the uptake of GPP in Italy has steadily increased in recent years, there is room to further expand the application of CAM in all public procurement. Data collected from voluntary surveys found that CAM were applied in 78% of public procurement in surveyed regions and metropolitan cities (MEF, 2021[37]). According to the Green Procurement Observatory,33 knowledge and uptake of GPP criteria is improving. Barriers to the broader use of GPP include insufficient training for staff, complexities related to procurement procedures, and the limited availability of products and services that respect CAM criteria, or the limited number of companies that hold CAM-recognised labels and certifications (Osservatorio Appalti Verdi, 2021[38]).

Institutional capacity to monitor GPP implementation is also improving. The absence of monitoring in the application of CAM within public entities has been a key gap for a long time. Having a thorough monitoring system in place helps not only to have a clear understanding of the dissemination of GPP in the public administration, but also to identify the barriers inhibiting full implementation. This requires a targeted measurement framework on GPP with appropriate performance indicators and clearly identified data sources. The automation of monitoring activities represents one way to drastically expand the scale of surveys on GPP uptake and reduce administrative costs (see Box ‎5.4 for the example of the Republic of Korea).

Box ‎5.4. Harnessing data and digitalisation to monitor GPP uptake in the Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea is a frontrunner in the use of electronic procurement systems and platforms for GPP implementation and monitoring. GPP is monitored using three indicators: i) the number of public organisations that submit GPP implementation plans and performance records; ii) the total annual green procurement, in economic value and units; and iii) green standards and specifications.

GPP implementation is monitored across 30 000 procuring entities via an online platform, the Green Procurement Information System (GPIS-I) monitoring system, which is intended to make the monitoring and reporting process easier and less burdensome. The GPIS-I provides access to resources, such as GPP guidelines, a repository of good practices implemented by contracting authorities, and a catalogue of certified products. In addition, records of green purchases procured through the central procurement agency (the Korea Public Procurement Service) are automatically transferred to the GPIS. With about 60% of the national green procurement data automatically reported via the GPIS, this greatly reduces the administrative burdens of both the procurers and the monitoring agency.

Source: (Hasanbeigi, Becqué and Springer, 2019[39]; UNEP, 2019[40]; The World Bank, 2021[41]; UNEP, 2017[42]).

Aggregators at all levels of government play a leading role in championing GPP to accelerate the transition towards a circular economy. The Italian public procurement system is composed of more than 30 000 contracting authorities active at local, regional and national level. There is a risk that a decentralised, fragmented system may not provide the scale needed for public procurement approaches. In this context, the centralisation of procurement through regional aggregators can better take advantage of the aggregated purchasing power of public administrations, which in turn would provide suppliers with the incentives required to introduce circular economy principles into their production lines.

Some exemplary initiatives already exist in Italy. For example, in 2009, the region of Emilia-Romagna committed to promoting the inclusion of environmental criteria in public procurement. To support the implementation of this commitment, the regional purchasing body, Intercent-ER, has been developing three-year action plans since 2012. These include targets, objectives, guidelines and instruments to promote green purchases by public administrations across the region. Intercent-ER also supports GPP uptake at the sub-national level through training courses, practice-oriented guidance, handbooks and toolkits, as well as a GPP Help Desk Service to disseminate information and offer technical support to contracting authorities. In 2018, the regional agency established an award (“Green Public Procurement: green purchases with Intercent-ER”) for the best performing local administrations.

Another virtuous example is that of Consip, the Centralised Purchasing Body of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which plays a central role in the advancement of green and circular public procurement in Italy. Consip aggregates demand from central government at the national level. It includes 31 centralised purchasing bodies (“soggetti aggregatori”) at regional and local level (PwC, 2021[43]). In 2020, Consip managed procurement spending for a total of EUR 13.91 billion (Albano, 2021[44]). As of 2017, about 91% of active and awarded agreements and 85% of e-marketplace initiatives included green criteria (Consip, MEF, 2017[45]). This centralised, yet flexible structure, allows for the effective dissemination of circular principles across various public entities.

In the health sector, Consip launched initiatives involving innovative forms of procurement in the renewal of diagnostic equipment. For instance, under a “pay-per-use” procurement model, healthcare facilities gain access to high-technology equipment through the payment of a fixed fee and a fee linked to the number of examinations performed, without being bound to the purchase of new equipment. This approach offers several advantages for buyers, including the guarantee of a product that is always in line with the latest quality standards and without the need for additional maintenance or technology upgrade costs. Moreover, machines operate more efficiently and provide better utilisation management, including sharing between different departments or facilities. End-of-life management is optimised through the reuse or recovery of parts or components and the separation of materials (Consip, 2018[46]; Stunning, October 2019[47]). Further use of centralised procurement could help steer production patterns towards increased circularity across multiple sectors.

Further leveraging circular procurement approaches could yield substantial benefits to promote sustainable and circular production and consumption patterns. As mentioned earlier, Italy already promotes the inclusion of circularity into procurement requirements through minimum and award environmental criteria that align with circular priorities (e.g. the promotion of eco-design, recycled content, repairable equipment, as well as energy or water consumption requirements). However, there is scope for a broader adoption of procurement strategies that promote circularity in consumption. These strategies mainly revolve around:

• The definition of needs. A better assessment and identification of needs for procurement can help limit the volume of purchases, and thus the amount of potential waste generation. Often, what is needed is not a new product, but the function that it provides. In Scotland, for example, senior leaders and procurement professionals of public bodies have an obligation to thoroughly evaluate their purchasing needs and rethink them before making any new purchasing decision to minimise waste and resource consumption. Moreover, they must have an appreciation of how procurement can support net-zero climate goals for their organisation and Scotland as a whole (Scottish Government, 2022[48]).

• More focus on services (and new business concepts) than products. The adoption of circular practices, such as leasing or sharing, can be effective instruments to help move towards a resource efficient and circular economy. Instruments include product-service systems, shared use, buy-per-use, or buy-back service models. Box ‎5.5 presents the benefits of procurement of a car sharing system, as compared to buying or leasing municipal car fleets, in Bremen, Germany.

• The adoption of contractual clauses and tender specifications that extend product lifespans. Public procurers can apply tender specifications that help reduce waste generation as well as contractual clauses that make suppliers responsible for keeping a product or material in the supply chain after its first use. This can be achieved by adopting product service systems, where the supplier retains the ownership of the product and the user pays-per-use or according to performance. Public tenders may also include purchase and buy back agreements (see Box ‎5.5, the second example from Aalborg, a municipality in Denmark), as well as purchase and resale agreements, where the contract prescribes who will recover the item after use, normally for a lower-value material reuse or recycling. Award criteria can also be used to reward tenderers that make an effort to extend the product’s lifespan by offering solutions for maintenance, repair and refurbishment, re-manufacturing, reuse, recycling or re-selling (European Commission, 2017[49]).

Box ‎5.5. Examples of circular practices in public procurement

Replacing vehicle fleets with a car sharing service in Bremen, Germany

In 2013, following a pilot period, the city of Bremen’s Senate Department for Environment, Construction and Transport shifted to a car sharing service to reduce CO₂ emissions from its business-related travel, also lowering costs associated with its vehicle fleet. The department previously owned (or leased) a fleet of 11 cars, but the utilisation rate was low (on average below three hours a day). By switching to a local car-sharing service with an online booking system, users had access to a more flexible and efficient fleet of vehicles, including electric vehicles, and saved on costs such as parking fees. In terms of environmental impact, the average CO₂ emissions of the car sharing fleet (107 g/km CO₂ in 2014, and 102 g/km CO₂ in 2015) were lower than the wider municipal administration (141 g/km CO₂ in 2013).

From waste to value: a buy-back service for used information and communications technology (ICT) equipment in Aalborg, Denmark

The city of Aalborg in Denmark is a large consumer of electronics, spending an estimated 2.5% of its annual budget on ICT equipment and software. The average lifespan of a laptop in the city is 3-4 years. Laptops were replaced often, as this was cheaper than the repair and maintenance of old equipment. However, these trends generated high costs and a high environmental footprint for the municipality. Only three out of seven ICT departments had agreements in place for the collection of old equipment, and the financial value recaptured from these agreements was low. The Environmental Department of the municipality calculated that by simply keeping laptops for six years instead of three, the city could cut the same amount of CO₂ emissions generated by heating and powering all municipality buildings in the city for a whole year. It would also reduce waste by an equivalent amount produced by 3 000 households in one year.

The municipality adapted its policy on ICT equipment to make its consumption more circular, including to improve the collection of old equipment and to extend its use time. The municipality’s policy of engraving laptops with the city’s logo was revised, as it was creating an obstacle to laptop reuse. Aalborg is now considering other options to improve the use and collection of ICT equipment, including more effective systems to ensure that laptops stay within the city’s ownership, and to better protect equipment (e.g. screen protection, covers) so as to increase their lifespan.

Source: Adapted from (Clean Fleets, 2015[50]; ICLEI, n.d.[51]; McLennan and Krebs Schleemann, 2021[52]).

To support public agencies in the use of CAM in public tenders, MASE organises training activities, such as distance training modules or thematic webinars. Some of these activities have been realised with the support of CReIAMO PA, a previous project that aimed to strengthen administrative capacity in the public administration and to support the integration of environmental considerations in their activities. Additionally, regional administrations and individual contracting authorities may carry out their own information and training initiatives to improve GPP knowledge and implementation within their internal organisations or within their local territories.

The creation of dedicated competence centres can play a key role in providing expertise on circular procurement. Competence centres can operate as centralised advisory services for public contracting authorities. They may support the incorporation of circularity into public procurement and its implementation through practical tools (i.e. practice-oriented guidelines, handbooks, training initiatives, workshops, ad hoc technical support, help-desk services, etc.). They can also facilitate peer learning, or support contracting authorities with drafting and implementing green public tenders.

There are several examples of competence centres on public procurement in OECD countries (e.g. Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden), some of which focus on innovation and sustainable public procurement. The type of support provided by these competence centres varies across countries (as shown by the Finnish example in Box ‎5.6). Networks of national competence centres, such as the European Governmental Competence Centres for Sustainable Public Procurement, help share practical experiences of public procurement. In a decentralised environment, such as in Italy, the centralisation of expertise and resources, through competence centres on specific topics, could prove highly beneficial (OECD, 2022[53]).

Box ‎5.6. The Finnish network-based Competence centre for Sustainable and Innovative Public Procurement, KEINO

KEINO is a consortium funded by Finland’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment that started operating in 2018. KEINO aims to raise awareness of strategic procurement management and impact thinking among contracting entities by providing advisory services and organising network meetings for procurement professionals. KEINO offers support with the creation of buyer groups, consisting of procurement entities with shared needs in the fields of social welfare and health services, construction and energy use, mobility and logistics, and the circular economy. Buyer groups develop joint plans of activities to clarify common challenges, develop joint criteria, tools and roadmaps, and organise joint market dialogues. The groups also compile best practices from Finland and abroad.

Additionally, KEINO supports the implementation of the Green Deal Agreement for Public Procurement, which is a voluntary commitment made between a procurement unit and a government entity relating to, for example, carbon neutrality goals, the circular economy, or sustainable and innovative procurement. Under this framework, KEINO supports procurement units in concrete procurement activities by providing expertise during the joint preparation phase as well as the tendering phase.

Source: (UNEP, 2017[54]; The World Bank, 2021[41]; Motiva, 2019[55]; UNEP, 2017[42]; KEINO, n.d.[56]).

Further upskilling the procurement workforce could substantially accelerate the uptake of CAM by public entities. Accelerating the transition towards a circular economy requires a skilled public procurement workforce that is well equipped and confident in using strategies and tools, such as comprehensive needs assessment, preliminary market consultation, life cycle costing and performance-based procurement, or criteria that prioritise the reuse and recycling of materials. Capacity building and awareness raising are even more critical for smaller municipalities that tend to use direct purchasing more often (as shown in Figure ‎5.3). Different solutions exist for upskilling the public procurement workforce, including training programmes, help-desk services, or the creation of multi-disciplinary teams in public administrations that gather experts from different fields (i.e. legal, technical/ engineering, procurement and environmental sustainability).

Figure ‎5.3. Smaller municipalities in Italy have lower procurement capacity and typically use direct purchasing

Indicators (average number of procurement projects by employee, and share of projects awarded by direct procurement) by municipality size, Italy, 2017

Note: Procurement projects relate to the municipalities’ offices covering road management, urban planning and environment. “Large” municipalities have more than 250 000 inhabitants, “medium” between 20 000 and 250 000 inhabitants, and “small” below 20 000 inhabitants.

Source: (OECD, 2021[57]).

The provision of practical tools could also support a greater uptake of circular procurement. The adoption of circular procurement approaches can be challenging, as they might appear inconsistent with well-established principles of transparency and open competition required of public procurement. Another challenge is the general perception that the costs of products and services that follow circular economy principles are higher. A range of tools can be made available to help contracting authorities navigate this complex environment (especially for product categories that are not centrally managed by aggregators), including:

• Operational tools on circular procurement, such as guidelines, model contracts or templates. For instance, the Dutch Public Procurement Expertise Centre (PIANOo) provides national and local procurers, and businesses, with information and resources on the implementation of circular procurement, including in specific sectors. Its “Guide to Circular Procurement” offers step-by-step guidance on how to incorporate circular aspects into public procurement, with background materials and practical examples. In addition, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management commissioned a circular procurement guide (“Circular procurement in 8 steps”) with guidance on how to promote circularity at different stages of procurement (Copper8, 2018[58]).

• Eco-labels or eco-design criteria. Public procurement approaches can play an important role in promoting the use of eco-labels and eco-certification schemes. In Italy, multiple CAM directly refer to green certifications, schemes and labels (e.g. the EU Ecolabel) as a way to certify compliance with technical requirements. Some CAM also refer to eco-labels as part of the award criteria, for example, for work footwear and leather products.34 Box ‎5.7 provides more information on the benefits and potential limits of eco-label uptake in GPP. In addition to labels and certifications, GPP can promote other instruments to raise consumer knowledge on the availability of green products and services, including through the creation of official databases (for instance, see Box ‎5.7 and the example of a centralised information system on green products established in the Republic of Korea).

• Lifecycle costing tools. Box ‎5.8 presents the experience of the national aggregator, Consip, in developing a simplified methodology to consider life cycle costing in some of its framework agreements, to include, for instance, the costs of energy consumption or repair.

Box ‎5.7. Eco-labels in green public procurement: advantages and complexities

Eco-labels intend to influence consumer or business decisions by offering clear, accurate and comparable information on the environmental performance of products. They are increasingly used by contracting authorities when implementing GPP, as they can both help define technical specifications of products and services, and support compliance with GPP requirements or award criteria. This can incentivise enterprises to apply for eco-labels, in turn, mainstreaming the purchase of greener products. For instance, a study on municipal buildings in California suggested that public procurement policies produce spill-over effects that stimulate both private-sector adoption of green standards and investments in green building expertise by local suppliers (Simcoe and Toffel, 2014[59]).

However, eco-labels present features that might influence competition in public tenders. Eco-labels often entail sizeable costs for companies related to certification and verification procedures, in addition to investments made to develop green products. Moreover, compliance verification can be a lengthy and costly process, requiring expensive testing equipment. Once the eco-label license is awarded, its usage implies the payment of a fee by companies. These costs could be a significant bottleneck for SMEs. These barriers could be particularly problematic in the context of already low levels of competition in public procurement (European Commission, 2017[60]). Moreover, in the absence of common criteria underpinning different schemes or mutually recognised agreements across countries, eco-labels could in fact create trade barriers. In an increasingly globalised market, harmonisation and mutual recognition of different eco-labels is hugely important to promote their uptake.

Green public procurement and the uptake of eco-labels in the Republic of Korea

In Korea, GPP and the Korea Eco-label were introduced in tandem in 1994. In 2005, the Act on Encouragement of Purchase of Green Products gave a strong push to the implementation of GPP. It mandated all contracting authorities to submit an implementation plan on green purchases for the current year and performance records for the previous year. State agencies were recommended to purchase green products and services for which eco-label criteria exist. If the total amount of purchases exceeds a certain threshold, the purchase is commissioned by the central purchasing body (the Korea Public Procurement Service). As a result of these measures, the number of products certified by the Korea Eco-label increased by a factor of 3.8 between 2004 and 2012.

Source: (Rubik et al., 2007[61]; Prakash et al., 2021[62]; Iraldo, Griesshammer and Kahlenborn, 2020[63]; UNEP & KEITI, 2020[64]).

Box ‎5.8. Consip’s integration of life cycle costing in framework agreements

Consip, the Centralised Purchasing Body of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, developed a methodology for the incorporation of life cycle costing in its framework agreements. The methodology, adapted for each product group, combines energy consumption of the product category with other green criteria. For instance, for the procurement of desktop computers and monitors, GPP criteria are based on the lowest costs, in addition to minimum environmental and social requirements. The full costing calculation formula includes information on the expected energy consumption based on certified data on energy performance and the price of electricity. For public lighting, criteria applied by Consip allow for the reduction of costs during the entire duration of service. In addition to mandatory GPP criteria, defining the threshold consumption for lamps, award criteria for the design of lighting systems grant extra points for solutions that facilitate repair or the replacement of a single component. In the health sector, the cost of servicing, maintenance and disposal is included in the purchase of certain appliances. Overall, this approach favours eco-design, extended lifespans and reductions in maintenance costs.

Source: (OECD, 2022[65]).

Risk aversion, a systemic issue in public procurement systems, could be addressed through capacity building and peer learning activities, in addition to the acquisition of technical skills. Creating safe spaces for experimentation in circular procurement is important, not only to build capacity but also to gain the confidence of public organisations in going beyond traditional and legalistic approaches. “Communities of practice” could provide such a space, where participants can learn and inspire each other, discuss challenges and share practical solutions. Within the framework of communities of practice, this powerful tool can be deployed to conduct pilot projects and communicate results widely. Pilot organisations usually become the ambassadors of circular procurement and can inform other purchasers on its financial, social and environmental advantages. Box ‎5.9 below presents examples of regional “Green Deals” on circular procurement initiatives. Notably, the setting up of a community of practice in Portugal’s Centro Region was a crucial element in delivering on regional circularity goals at a time when the use of circular public procurement was a new concept for most actors in the region.

Risk aversion could be further overcome by influencing the motivations of public buyers. Non-financial, behavioural incentives include rewarding good practices (e.g. via national circular procurement prizes), making circular procurement a goal in the annual performance of procurement officials, or providing promotion opportunities for public buyers who successfully implement circular procurement. For instance, the Procura+ Awards reward sustainable, circular and innovative procurement solutions that have a strong potential for replication and upscaling in Europe.35

Box ‎5.9. Regional ‘Green Deals’ on circular procurement and communities of practice

The Flemish Green Deal on Circular Procurement

The Flemish Green Deal on Circular Procurement was inspired by the Dutch Green Deal on Circular Procurement to promote circular procurement as a lever for its circular economy transition. In June 2017, 153 participants signed the Flemish Green Deal Charter on Circular Procurement. Each of the participating buyers committed to structurally change the way their organisation buys and sets up at least two circular procurement projects. The 52 facilitators pledged to use their varied expertise to support the public buyers, and they formed a unique learning network.

The Flemish Green Deal on Circular Procurement, however, ended in November 2019. The multiple lessons learned were shared online to facilitate dissemination (www.circularprocurement.be). A specific tool and reporting system was created to measure the individual results of the more than 100 experiments. Based on these experiences, on how to run a community of practice, a specific guide was published.

The Centro Green Deal on Circular Procurement in Portugal

The Centro Green Deal on Circular Public Procurement, launched in April 2019, gathered five inter-municipal communities, three municipalities, two polytechnic schools, one university and one hospital from the region with the ambition to build a local circular economy by shifting to sustainable and circular public procurement practices, among other things. Each signatory committed to launch at least two circular public procurement tenders by the end of the project and to share the knowledge acquired during this process. Circular tenders were launched in various fields, such as the provision of school meals, the purchase of electric vehicles, or the rental and maintenance of uniforms.

The Centro Green Deal is led by the Regional Coordination and Development Commission (CCDR-C), a regional branch of Portugal’s National Administration, which created a community of practice (the Centro Green Deal Network) to bring together contracting authorities participating in the Green Deal. The network provided a safe space for signatories to share their experiences and to learn from each other on how to implement circular procurement. Peer learning was enriched through exchanges with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Denmark, as well as through practical support from the OECD. This enabled the region to raise its capacity and bring circularity into its procurement strategy.

Source: (Flanders Circular, n.d.[66]; OECD, 2021[67])

Strengthening strategic relationships with the business sector can boost circular innovation. Market knowledge is an essential part of any public procurement, whether for long-term strategic goals or to understand the options available for a specific tender. Public authorities experience challenges in adequately identifying and assessing their “green” needs. Furthermore, they often lack awareness of existing solutions, or the market’s readiness for green innovations. Sustainable procurement therefore often requires tender specifications to be set following previous exchanges with potential suppliers to better align with market capacity. These market consultations can effectively support GPP implementation (Fidone and Mataluni, 2016[68]; Edler and Georghiou, 2007[69]; Brammer and Walker, 2011[70]).

EU directives on public procurement36 specifically refer to preliminary market consultations (PMCs) to gather information from market suppliers and to inform economic operators of procurement plans. The use of a PMC is particularly suitable for complex or experimental contracts with strong technological or innovative components that fall outside the expertise of the contracting authority. The example from Scotland (in Box ‎5.10) offers an illustration of the benefits of market engagement. PMCs were introduced into Italian legislation in 2016,37 also foreseeing the possibility for corrective measures to ensure equal treatment of market operators. Italy’s National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) (2019[71]) has published guidance on PMC, clarifying that it is a preliminary, optional step, not a decisive one. PMCs remains a relatively new instrument and is scarcely used by contracting authorities in Italy.

A broader adoption of PMCs could benefit the implementation of GPP in many ways. By signalling procurement plans to the market, it may reduce the risk of unsuccessful tenders and increase both cooperation and competition. Where products or services are not yet available on the market in a way that fulfils circular principles, innovation procurement could be used to encourage R&D, and to pilot new products or services. Conversely, where the technological solution exists and is ready for large-scale commercialisation, the contracting authority may act as an “early adopter” of innovative solutions.

Box ‎5.10. Engaging with the market and users to define procurement needs in Scotland

In 2016, the Scottish Procurement Directorate established a new suite of framework agreements for the supply of ICT client devices. The new ICT frameworks were developed with extensive market engagement, including meetings with industry experts, manufacturers, resellers and other organisations within the supply chain. The extensive market engagement, preceding the tendering process, ensured that potential bidders were made aware of the requirements for obtaining the necessary accreditation. The focus was on circular economy outcomes of procurement through, among others, management of end-of-life of devices. Awarded bidders demonstrated how they would extend the useful life of devices through the reuse of components. While this was readily available for certain devices, it was variable for tablet devices, which can be difficult to disassemble and repair. The successful contractor introduced a “buy back” scheme for used tablet devices, contributing to circular economy outcomes.

Source: Adapted from (European Commission, 2017[72]).

Public administrations can play an exemplary role by making green purchases, influencing staff and consumers on their consumption choices, and encouraging them to choose eco-compatible products and services (Wang et al., 2021[73]). Public administrations often serve as lead consumers of green solutions, demonstrating the value and functionalities of environmentally sustainable products and raising early awareness (Bauer et al., 2009[74]; Edler and Georghiou, 2007[69]), which helps mitigate consumers’ mistrust in green products (UNEP & KEITI, 2020[64]). Box ‎5.11 presents an example of how public procurement of food in Sweden had influenced individual consumer behaviour more widely.

Box ‎5.11. Influencing behaviours through strategic procurement decisions in Sweden

In 2006, the Swedish Government launched a new GPP policy mandating a 25% increase in the public sector’s organic food consumption. In 2017, this policy ambition was raised to reach a 60% organic share of the public sector’s food consumption. According to an empirical analysis on data covering Sweden’s 290 municipalities and 21 counties over the period 2003-2016, public organic food purchases increased (from 2.2% in 2003 to 30% in 2016) and had a significantly positive impact on the share of organic farmland in the country. The researchers found that, while an increase in public organic food procurement did not have a significant effect within a single county, the collective increase in municipality spending across all counties did entice producers at the local county scale. This experience suggests that public authorities, acting together, have sufficient buying power to influence wholesalers, despite the small size of the public sector in terms of food purchases (4% of the Swedish market).

Source: (Lindström, Lundberg and Marklund, 2020[75]).

5.12. Summary of assessment

This chapter looked at the state of existing economic instruments in Italy to identify potential opportunities for improvement, and the possibilities for introducing additional instruments. Table ‎5.4 summarises the main findings. Chapter 6 expands on selected opportunities for instrument reform or introduction.

Table ‎5.4. Summary of economic instruments discussed in this chapter

Instrument	Successes / advantages	Issues or opportunities for improvement
Fees on extractive activities	Some revenue raising.	Low fee rates Very limited incentives to affect the quantities extracted No harmonisation (no minimum rate) and large variations across the country
Plastic tax (due to enter into force in July 2024)	Could provide incentives to favour secondary (and other recovered) materials. Could raise revenues for the EU plastics own resources.	Limited experience when implemented on virgin materials Uncertain time frames of implementation
CIT incentives to support non-virgin materials	Support for R&D and green innovation, including growing support of the circular economy transition.	New measure when applied to support for secondary and other recovered materials. Ex-ante and ex-post monitoring and evaluations of measures are required, where possible (see Chapter 10 for further insights).
Fiscal measures to reduce waste generation	Promotes donations of surplus goods. Likely contributes to food waste prevention.	Opportunities to increase price signals to promote waste prevention and reuse more structurally in the economy.
Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT)	High uptake in several regions. Favours recycling over landfilling and incineration. Tendency to lower waste management costs.	Disparities in regional uptake. Opportunities for higher diffusion, but there are often barriers of a political economy nature.
Landfill and incineration taxes	Possibly generate price signals against landfilling in the initial phase of introduction.	Tax rates are too low to discourage landfilling. Cap on tax rates does not allow higher tax rates. Substantial regional differences in tax rates. Incineration tax only applies to incineration without energy recovery (classified as an environmentally harmful subsidy). Landfill and incineration taxes are only effective if implemented in a well-functioning system (separate waste collection, infrastructural improvements taking place in parallel).
Extended Producer Responsibility	Coverage of many sectors, including an ongoing extension for textile-fashion. Contribution to improved collection and recycling. Some advanced fee modulation based on recyclability criteria. Technical support to municipalities and lower financial burden for separate waste collection. Allowed to reach some recycling targets in advance of the target year.	Limited incentives for eco-design, opportunities to extend the use of advanced fee modulation. Opportunities to extend EPR to cover waste prevention and reuse. Opportunities to enhance governance and reduce free riding.
Green Public Procurement	Longstanding presence in Italian policy framework. Mandatory application of GPP criteria. Circular economy principles integrated in CAM for some products and service categories.	There are opportunities to further increase uptake and shift to circular procurement approaches, including by leveraging the role of aggregators, further upskilling the workforce and providing relevant practical tools, and strengthening strategic relationships with the business sector (e.g. through preliminary market consultations) to boost circular innovation. Opportunities to enhance institutional capacity to monitor GPP implementation.

References

[27] ADEME (2022), Les filières à Responsabilité élargie des producteurs (REP), https://www.ademe.fr/expertises/dechets/elements-contexte/filieres-a-responsabilite-elargie-producteurs-rep (accessed on 1 February 2022).

[44] Albano, G. (2021), Sustainable Public Procurement in Italy: The role of Consip, https://ipscm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Sustainable-Public-Procurement-in-Italy_The-role-of-Consip_CONSIP_GL_Albano.pdf.

[13] Ambiente Regione Emilia Romagna (2020), Diffusione della Tariffa puntuale in Emilia-Romagna, https://ambiente.regione.emilia-romagna.it/it/rifiuti/temi/rifiuti/economia-circolare/tariffa-puntuale/diffusione-della-tariffa-puntuale-in-emilia-romagna (accessed on 9 September 2021).

[71] ANAC (2019), Linee Guida n. 14 recanti “Indicazioni sulle consultazioni preliminari di mercato”, https://www.anticorruzione.it/consulta-i-documenti?q=&type=119152&sort=ddm__Dataclu0_String_sortableDESC (accessed on  July 2022).

[12] ARERA (2019), Rifiuti: nuovo metodo tariffario e prime regole di trasparenza, https://www.arera.it/it/com_stampa/19/191031.htm (accessed on 9 September 2021).

[77] Auci, S. and D. Vignani (2020), “Mines and quarries production: A driver analysis of withdrawals in Italy”, Resources Policy, Vol. 67, p. 101657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101657.

[74] Bauer, B. et al. (2009), Benefits of Green Public Procurement, https://www.norden.org/en/publication/benefits-green-public-procurement.

[70] Brammer, S. and H. Walker (2011), “Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international comparative study”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31/4, pp. 452-476, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111119551.

[23] Brown, A., F. Laubinger and P. Börkey (2023), “New Aspects of EPR: Extending producer responsibility to additional product groups and challenges throughout the product lifecycle”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 225, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cfdc1bdc-en.

[22] CITEO (2019), The 2020 rate for recycling household packaging, https://www.citeo.com/le-mag/le-tarif-2020-pour-le-recyclage-des-emballages/ (accessed on 7 October 2020).

[50] Clean Fleets (2015), “Increasing efficiency of administration’s fleet management-Car-sharing in Bremen”, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009R1221 (accessed on 26 July 2022).

[15] Comuni Ricicloni (2022), Rifiuti, Comuni Ricicloni 2022: spiccano le regioni di Nord-Est, male il Centro Italia, https://www.iconaclima.it/italia/territorio-italia/rifiuti-comuni-ricicloni-2022-spiccano-le-regioni-di-nord-est-male-il-centro/.

[21] CONAI (2024), Contributo ambientale, https://www.conai.org/imprese/contributo-ambientale/ (accessed on 1 April 2024).

[35] CONAI, ReMade in Italy (2021), Green Public Procurement e CAM - Imballaggi. Linea Guida per le imprese che partecipano alle gare pubbliche, https://www.conai.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Linee_Guida_GPP_CONAI_REMADE.pdf.

[46] Consip (2018), Rapporto di Sostenibilita’ 2018.

[45] Consip, MEF (2017), “Presentazione Green Public Procurement”, Il GPP e Il programma per la razionalizzazione degli acquisti nella P.A., https://www.acquistinretepa.it/opencms/opencms/programma_acquistiverdi.html (accessed on  July 2022).

[58] Copper8 (2018), Circular Procurement in 8 steps.

[26] ECO-TLC (2019), NOUVEAUX CRITERES DURABILITE et PERIMETRE PRODUITS CONCERNES Eco Modulation 1 «durabilité » (bonus de 50 %), https://refashion.fr/pro/sites/default/files/fichiers/Crite%CC%80res%202020%20Eco%20modulation%201_durabilite%CC%81%20%281%29.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2020).

[69] Edler, J. and L. Georghiou (2007), “Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side”, Research Policy, Vol. 36/7, pp. 949-963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.003.

[17] ETC/SCP (2012), Overview of the use of landfill taxes in Europe, http://www.embopar.pt/folder/documento/99_Landfill%20taxes%20in%20Europe.pdf.

[60] European Commission (2017), Making Public Procurement work in and for Europe, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2017%3A572%3AFIN (accessed on 23 November 2021).

[49] European Commission (2017), Public Procurement for a Circular Economy - Good practice and guidance, European Union, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pubs_en.htm.

[72] European Commission (2017), “Purchasing framework for energy efficient computer”.

[24] European Union (2018), Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32018L0851.

[1] Eurostat (2023), Material flow accounts.

[4] Eurostat (2022), Packaging waste by waste management operations (ENV_WASPAC).

[5] Eurostat (2022), Recycling rates of packaging waste for monitoring compliance with policy targets, by type of packaging (ENV_WASPACR).

[68] Fidone, G. and F. Mataluni (2016), “Gli appalti verdi nel Codice dei Contratti Pubblici”, Quarterly Journal of Environmental Law, No. 3, pp. 4-64, https://www.rqda.eu/en/gianfrancesco-fidone-francesco-mataluni-gli-appalti-verdi-nel-codice-dei-contratti-pubblici/.

[66] Flanders Circular (n.d.), Green Deal Circular Procurement, https://www.vlaanderen-circulair.be/nl/onze-projecten/detail/green-deal-circulair-aankopen (accessed on 2 November 2022).

[39] Hasanbeigi, A., R. Becqué and C. Springer (2019), Curbing Carbon from Consumption: the role fo green public procurement, Global Efficiency Intelligence.

[29] Hilton, M. et al. (2019), “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and the Impact of Online Sales”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 142, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cde28569-en.

[62] Hofmann, K. (ed.) (2021), Barrier Analysis and Strategies for Ecolables and Sustainable Public Procurement Implementation, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/knowledge-centre/resources/barrier-analysis-and-strategies-ecolabels-and-sustainable-public.

[51] ICLEI (n.d.), “Procura+ Network”, Oslo, https://procuraplus.org/public-authorities/oslo/ (accessed on  July 2022).

[63] Iraldo, F., R. Griesshammer and W. Kahlenborn (2020), “The future of ecolabels”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 25/5, pp. 833-839, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01741-9.

[14] ISPRA (2021), Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani Ispra - Edizione 2020, https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2020/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapportorifiutiurbani_ed-2020_n-331-1.pdf.

[79] ISTAT (2024), Survey on Anthropic Pressures and Natural Risks - Mining and Quarrying Extraction Activities (metadata, information and methodology), https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/204473.

[80] ISTAT (2024), The Report on Equitable and Sustainable Well-being (BES 2023) - Chapter 9 Landscape and Cultural Heritage, https://www.istat.it/en/well-being-and-sustainability/the-measurement-of-well-being/bes-report.

[78] ISTAT (2023), Annual Report 2023 The State of the Nation, Chapter 2 Energy and Environment - Anthropic Pressures and Natural Risks, https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/291790.

[2] ISTAT (2023), Cave e miniere: Risorse minerali non energetiche estratte (in unità di peso).

[76] ISTAT (2021), Indice delle vendite del commercio al dettaglio : Valore delle vendite per settore merceologico e forma distributiva - mensili (base 2015), http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DCSC_COMMDET_1.

[56] KEINO (n.d.), “KEINO - Competence Center for Sustainable and Innovative Public Procurement”, KEINO services, https://www.hankintakeino.fi/en (accessed on  July 2022).

[20] Laubinger, F. et al. (2021), “Modulated fees for Extended Producer Responsibility schemes (EPR)”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 184, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2a42f54b-en.

[19] Legambiente (2019), Rifiuti zero, impianti mille.

[28] Lifset, R., A. Atasu and N. Tojo (2013), “Extended Producer Responsibility”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 17/2, pp. 162-166, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12022.

[75] Lindström, H., S. Lundberg and P. Marklund (2020), “How Green Public Procurement can drive conversion of farmland: An empirical analysis of an organic food policy”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 172, p. 106622, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106622.

[9] MASE (2022), Catalogo dei sussidi ambientalmente dannosi e dei sussidi ambientalmente favorevoli 2022 (Dati 2021), https://www.mite.gov.it/pagina/catalogo-dei-sussidi-ambientalmente-dannosi-e-dei-sussidi-ambientalmente-favorevoli.

[16] MATTM (2019), Catalogo dei sussidi ambientalmente dannosi e dei sussidi ambientalmente favorevoli 2018.

[52] McLennan, A. and B. Krebs Schleemann (2021), “The power of public procurement in the transition to a circular economy”, Field Actions Science Reports.

[37] MEF (2021), Documento di Economia e Finanza - Sezione 1, Programma di Stabilita.

[33] Ministry of Economy and Finance (2021), Documento di Economia e Finanza - Sezione 1, Programma di Stabilita.

[6] MiSE (n.d.), Progetti di ricerca e sviluppo per l’economia circolare, https://www.mise.gov.it/index.php/it/incentivi/impresa/r-s-economia-circolare.

[36] MiTE (2022), Strategia nazionale per l’economia circolare.

[34] MiTE (2021), CAM - Criteri Ambientali Minimi, https://gpp.mite.gov.it/.

[3] MiTE (2021), Catalogo dei Sussidi Ambientalmente Dannosi e dei Sussidi Ambientalmente Favorevoli 2021 (Dati 2019-2020), https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/sviluppo_sostenibile/CSA_quarta_edizione_29_12_21.pdf.

[55] Motiva (2019), “Public Sector”, Sustainable Public Procurements, https://www.motiva.fi/en/public_sector/sustainable_public_procurements (accessed on  July 2022).

[11] OECD (2022), “Closing the loop in the Slovak Republic: A roadmap towards circularity for competitiveness, eco-innovation and sustainability”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 30, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acadd43a-en.

[65] OECD (2022), Life-Cycle Costing in Public Procurement in Hungary: Stocktaking of Good Practices, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d90f627-en.

[53] OECD (2022), Towards Agile ICT Procurement in the Slovak Republic: Good Practices and Recommendations, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0a5d50f-en.

[32] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.

[67] OECD (2021), Mainstreaming strategic public procurement to advance regional development: An experiment to support public buyers achieving Cohesion Policy objectives, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/public-procurement/country-projects/public-procurement-and-cohesion-policy-objectives/FINAL-REPORT-Mainstreaming-strategic-procurement.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2022).

[57] OECD (2021), OECD Economic Surveys: Italy 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/07d8b9cd-en.

[10] OECD (2020), The Circular Economy in Cities and Regions: Synthesis Report, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10ac6ae4-en.

[30] OPTIME (2021), Rapporto OPTIME - Nota di aggiornamento 2021.

[38] Osservatorio Appalti Verdi (2021), I numeri del Green Public Procurement in Italia - Rapporto 2021, https://www.legambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Osservatorio-Appalti-Verdi_dossier2021.pdf.

[31] Prevent Waste (2020), Country Report Germany. How Germany’s EPR system for packaging waste went from a single PRO to multiple PROs with a register, https://prevent-waste.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Germany.pdf.

[43] PwC (2021), “The strategic use of public procurement for innovation in the Digital Economy Smart 2016/0040”, Italy - country profile, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/results-eu-wide-benchmarking-innovation-procurement-investments-and-policy-frameworks-across-europe.

[18] REF Ricerche (2020), “Una tassazione ambientale poco green”, Laboratorio SPL Collana Ambiente, Vol. Rifiuti N°163/Ottobre 2020.

[7] Regione Lombardia (2021), Bando per l’innovazione delle filiere di economia circolare in Lombardia 2021, https://www.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/istituzionale/HP/DettaglioAvviso/servizi-e-informazioni/imprese/filiere-eccellenti/bando-innovazione-filiere-economia-circolare-2021/bando-innovazione-filiere-economia-circolare-2021.

[61] Rubik, F. et al. (2007), “Eco-labelling and consumers: towards a re-focus and integrated approaches”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 2/2, p. 175, https://doi.org/10.1504/ijisd.2007.016932.

[25] Sachdeva, A., A. Araujo and M. Hirschnitz-Garbers (2021), Extended Producer Responsibility and Ecomodulation of Fees.

[48] Scottish Government (2022), Public procurement - taking account of climate and circular economy considerations: SPPN 3/2022 - gov.scot, https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-procurement-taking-account-of-climate-and-circular-economy-considerations-3-2022/ (accessed on 30 November 2022).

[59] Simcoe, T. and M. Toffel (2014), “Government green procurement spillovers: Evidence from municipal building policies in California”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 68/3, pp. 411-434, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.09.001.

[47] Stunning (October 2019), Energy Perfomance Contracting (EPC) - Description, https://renovation-hub.eu/business-models/energy-performance-contracting-epc/ (accessed on  July 2022).

[41] The World Bank (2021), “Green Public Procurement: An Overview of Green Reforms in Country Procurement Systems”, Climate Governance Papers Series, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/36508.

[40] UNEP (2019), Green Public Procurement in the Republic of Korea: a decade of progress and lessons learned.

[54] UNEP (2017), Factsheet on sustainable public procurement in national governments.

[42] UNEP (2017), Global Review of Sustainable Public Procurement.

[64] UNEP & KEITI (2020), Green Public Procurement in the Republic of Korea: A Decade of Progress and Lessons Learned.

[8] Unioncamere Lombardia (2022), Bando Innovazione delle filiere di economia circolare 2022, https://www.unioncamerelombardia.it/bandi-e-incentivi-alle-imprese/dettaglio-bando/bando-innovazione-delle-filiere-di-economia-circolare-2022 (accessed on 5 March 2024).

[73] Wang, Q. et al. (2021), “Green public procurement as a promoter for green consumption: From the perspective of individual’s knowledge”, Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, Vol. 3, p. 100035, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100035.

Notes

← 1.  Major reports by ISTAT related to extractive activities include (ISTAT, 2023[78]; ISTAT, 2024[79]; ISTAT, 2024[80]) as well as (Auci and Vignani, 2020[77]).

← 2.  Legislative Decree No. 196 of 8 November 2021, implementing Directive (EU) 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.

← 3.  Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom.

← 4.  This indicative value was calculated based on waste generation levels (2.3 Mt), the recycling rate (56.6% not recycled), the rate of the EU plastics own resource (EUR 0.8 / kg), and the lump sum reduction granted to Italy (EUR 184 048).

← 5.  2020 Budget Law (Law 27 December 2019, n.160), art 1, paragraphs 634-658.

← 6.  Law of 30 December 2020 No 178 “State budget for the financial year 2021 and multi-year budget for the period 2021-2023”. Additionally, the Budget Law also envisioned tax credits for investments made by plastics producers in technological upgrades for the production of biodegradable and compostable plastics.

← 7.  Public procurement can act as a strong lever to boost circular innovation, as further discussed in section 5.10.

← 8.  The forthcoming plan “Transition 5.0”, an evolution from Transition 4.0, aims to further support green and digital transitions by focusing on the shift to more energy-efficient and sustainable production processes, modulating the share of the tax benefit for firms based on the extent of their improvements in energy efficiency.

← 9.  The measure was launched through the Decree of the Ministry for Ecological Transition 177/2020 “Research and development projects for the circular economy”.

← 10.  The measure was introduced through Resolution no. 4536 – Call for support to SMEs for the innovation of circular economy supply chains in Lombardia, 2021 Edition, and Resolution no. 6402 – Call for support to SMEs for the innovation of circular economy supply chains in Lombardia, 2022 Edition.

← 11.  Law 30 December 2018, No. 145 “State budget for the financial year 2019 and multiannual budget for the three-year period 2019-2021”. Decree of the Ministry for Ecological Transition of 14 December 2021 “Technical requirements and certifications attesting to the eco-sustainable nature of products and packaging according to current European and national legislation”.

← 12.  Leg. Decree 2019/34 “Urgent measures for economic growth and resolution of specific crisis situations”, then converted to Law 28 June 2019, No. 58. The Decree of the Ministry for Ecological Transition of 6 October 2021 “Implementing provisions for the tax credit on products from recycling and reuse” defined the technical criteria certifying the types of materials and products eligible for the tax credit, as well as the procedures for benefiting from the tax credit.

← 13.  Leg. Decree 196/2021: “Implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment”.

← 14.  2020 Budget Law, Law 27 December 2019, No.160.

← 15.  Law Decree 30 April 2019, No. 34 “Urgent measures for economic growth and for resolving specific crisis situations”, then converted to Law 28 June 2019, No. 58.

← 16.  Decree of the Ministry for Ecological Transition 22 September 2021 “Measures to encourage the sale of products in bulk or on tap”.

← 17.  Law 19 August 2016, No. 166 “Provisions concerning the donation and distribution of food and pharmaceutical products for social solidarity purposes and for the limitation of waste”.

← 18.  Law Decree No. 18 of 17 March 2020 “Measures to strengthen the National Health Service and economic support for families, workers and businesses related to the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency”.

← 19.  Leg. Decree No. 117 of 3 July 2017 “Third Sector Code”, pursuant to Article 1(2)(b) of Law No. 106 of 6 June 2016.

← 20.  Tax benefits provided by the Anti-Waste Law (Law No. 166/2016) and by the Third Sector Code (Leg. Decree 117/2017) cannot be combined.

← 21.  Law Decree No. 91 of 20 June 2017 “Urgent provisions for economic growth in the Mezzogiorno geographical area”.

← 22.  Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. For reference on the use of economic instruments to provide incentives for the application of the waste hierarchy, see Annex IVa “Examples of economic instruments and other measures to provide incentive for the application of the waste hierarchy referred to in Article 4(3).

← 23.  Law No. 147 of 27 December 2013 “Provisions for the formation of the annual and multi-year budget of the State”.

← 24.  Gate fees, i.e., the charge levied by landfill operators upon reception of waste, vary widely across regions. They are lowest in Abruzzo (EUR 87/t), Umbria (EUR 60-110/t), Calabria (EUR 90/t) and in the autonomous province Bolzano-Bozen (EUR 62.53/t) (Legambiente, 2019[19]).

← 25.  Legislative Decree 152/2006 “Environmental Consolidated Act”.

← 26.  In terms of cost coverage, there is often a need to put in place incentives for the efficient management of waste by municipalities. To this end, in some countries, EPR systems have established reference costs for municipal services, which provide a benchmark or limit regarding what constitutes reasonable costs (Lifset, Atasu and Tojo, 2013[28]). In Italy, ARERA is tasked with defining “efficient” waste collection and management costs.

← 27.  The importance of online sales has continued to grow In Italy in recent years, with the overall economic value of e-commerce sales more than doubling between 2015 and 2020 (ISTAT, 2021[76]).

← 28.  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

← 29.  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance.

← 30.  The reference legislation for GPP in Italy is the Public Contract Code, Legislative Decree No. 36 of 31 March 2023.

← 31.  Decree of the Ministry of Ecological Transition 23 June 2022 No 256, Awarding of Design Services and Contracting of Works for Building Interventions.

← 32.  Minimum environmental criteria (CAM) for the supply and rental of textile products and for the restyling and finishing service of textile products, adopted by decree of the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security, 7 February 2023.

← 33.  The Green Procurement Observatory (“Osservatorio Appalti Verdi”) managed by Legambiente has been collecting survey data on the adoption of CAM by different contracting authorities since 2018. A sample-based monitoring, using data extracted from the National Observatory of Public Contracts managed by the National Anticorruption Authority, has recently been conducted by CNR IIA. The monitoring has been made on some public procurements categories in which CAM are in force. This monitoring, and the surveys conducted by Legambiente, represent the most comprehensive measurement of GPP across the national territory. The collected data can support policy makers to understand the level of use of CAM among contracting authorities and approximate the volume of public expenditure involved.

← 34.  Supplies of non-PPE and PPE (personal protective equipment) work footwear, leather items and accessories in Italy (approved with Ministerial Decree of 17 May 2018, in Official Journal no. 125 of 31 May 2018); https://www.mite.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/GPP/allegato_CAM_Calzature_31052018.pdf

← 35.  https://procuraplus.org/awards/

← 36.  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC.

← 37.  Legislative Decree 18 April 2016 (The Code of Public Contracts), No. 50 is the result of the transposition into national legislation of art. 40 and 41 of Directive 2014/24/EU and art. 58 of Directive 2014/25/EU.