UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Economic and Management Sciences
⋄
GREEN PROCUREMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Semester 1 — Assignment 2 — 2026
⋄
Module Code: MNO3603
Module Name: Operations Management
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Due Date: 15 April 2026
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Operations Management
at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | MNO3603 Green Procurement and Sustainable Development
Question 1: Green Procurement and Sustainable Development in the Public Sector
Green procurement is one of the more practical tools governments have for pushing sustain-
ability from rhetoric into practice. Rather than waiting for markets to shift on their own, public
buyers use their purchasing power to redirect supply chains, reduce environmental damage,
and support the social goals embedded in sustainable development frameworks (Ortega
Carrasco et al., 2024).
1.1 How Green Procurement Supports Sustainable Development
Sustainable development, as articulated through the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals, requires a balance among economic growth, environmental protection, and social eq-
uity. Green Public Procurement (GPP) addresses all three dimensions simultaneously. When
a government ministry buys energy-efficient equipment, for instance, it reduces its carbon
footprint while creating demand for cleaner manufacturing processes (UNEP, 2024). The
UNEP notes that public procurement accounts for between 13 and 20 per cent of GDP in
many countries, representing approximately USD 9.5 trillion annually, which gives govern-
ments real leverage to reshape market behaviour (UNEP, 2024). South Africa’s Department
of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries has increasingly incorporated green criteria into state
procurement through the Government Procurement Communication Strategy, signalling that
local demand for sustainable goods is not merely aspirational.
Implementation Insight
In South Africa, the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act is increasingly
being read alongside environmental objectives, creating a dual mandate: support his-
torically disadvantaged suppliers and procure goods with lower environmental impact.
This intersection is where sustainable development becomes most tangible.
1.2 The Role of Government Purchasing Power in Encouraging Greener Suppliers
Government procurement functions as a demand-side policy instrument. When the state sig-
nals, through tender specifications, that it will only buy products meeting defined environmen-
tal criteria, suppliers face a clear financial incentive to invest in greener production methods.
China’s experience is instructive: after adopting GPP through its Government Procurement
Law in 2002 and expanding the Energy Conservation and Environmental Labelling Product list,
Page 1 of 24
, UNISA | MNO3603 Green Procurement and Sustainable Development
domestic manufacturers began redesigning product lines to qualify for government contracts
(Dion et al., 2015). This is not incidental. A guaranteed large-volume, long-term buyer changes
the risk calculus for a supplier contemplating a costly retooling of its manufacturing process.
The purchasing power argument also works at a systemic level. Sonnichsen and Clement
(2020) found that when public buyers in the European Union consistently demanded products
with lower lifecycle environmental costs, supplier innovation accelerated, particularly in en-
ergy hardware and construction materials. South African state-owned enterprises such as
Eskom and Transnet, given their procurement volumes, could exercise comparable influence
if GPP criteria were consistently applied in their supply chain requirements.
Table 1: Comparison: Traditional vs Green Procurement Criteria
Criterion Traditional Procurement Green Procurement
Price basis Lowest initial cost Whole life value
Product specification Technical performance Technical + environmental
Supplier selection Price and delivery Price, delivery, ISO/ecolabel
Post-use considera- Not included End-of-life and recyclability
tion
Social impact Rarely assessed Employment and health impacts
considered
1.3 Environmental Effects Across the Product Lifecycle
Products procured by the public sector carry environmental costs at every stage: raw mate-
rial extraction, manufacturing, transport, use, and disposal. The lifecycle perspective is not
merely academic; it is the basis on which GPP criteria are designed. At the extraction stage,
the mining of metals for office equipment or public infrastructure disturbs soil, depletes wa-
ter resources, and releases greenhouse gases. Manufacturing adds sulphur dioxide, nitrous
oxide, and particulate matter to the atmosphere. Once in use, energy-intensive products con-
tinue to generate emissions. At disposal, improper treatment of electronic waste, for example,
releases mercury and lead into soil and groundwater (Dion et al., 2015).
South Africa’s Listeria contamination crisis in 2017 to 2018 illustrated how poor environmen-
tal management in food production, specifically soil and water contamination, can create
catastrophic public health consequences. The contaminated Tiger Brands products that
killed over 200 people were partly traceable to environmental lapses in the supply chain.
This is precisely why lifecycle environmental assessment matters: harm can originate far
upstream from the point of purchase.
Page 2 of 24
College of Economic and Management Sciences
⋄
GREEN PROCUREMENT AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Semester 1 — Assignment 2 — 2026
⋄
Module Code: MNO3603
Module Name: Operations Management
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Due Date: 15 April 2026
Semester: Semester 1, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Operations Management
at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | MNO3603 Green Procurement and Sustainable Development
Question 1: Green Procurement and Sustainable Development in the Public Sector
Green procurement is one of the more practical tools governments have for pushing sustain-
ability from rhetoric into practice. Rather than waiting for markets to shift on their own, public
buyers use their purchasing power to redirect supply chains, reduce environmental damage,
and support the social goals embedded in sustainable development frameworks (Ortega
Carrasco et al., 2024).
1.1 How Green Procurement Supports Sustainable Development
Sustainable development, as articulated through the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals, requires a balance among economic growth, environmental protection, and social eq-
uity. Green Public Procurement (GPP) addresses all three dimensions simultaneously. When
a government ministry buys energy-efficient equipment, for instance, it reduces its carbon
footprint while creating demand for cleaner manufacturing processes (UNEP, 2024). The
UNEP notes that public procurement accounts for between 13 and 20 per cent of GDP in
many countries, representing approximately USD 9.5 trillion annually, which gives govern-
ments real leverage to reshape market behaviour (UNEP, 2024). South Africa’s Department
of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries has increasingly incorporated green criteria into state
procurement through the Government Procurement Communication Strategy, signalling that
local demand for sustainable goods is not merely aspirational.
Implementation Insight
In South Africa, the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act is increasingly
being read alongside environmental objectives, creating a dual mandate: support his-
torically disadvantaged suppliers and procure goods with lower environmental impact.
This intersection is where sustainable development becomes most tangible.
1.2 The Role of Government Purchasing Power in Encouraging Greener Suppliers
Government procurement functions as a demand-side policy instrument. When the state sig-
nals, through tender specifications, that it will only buy products meeting defined environmen-
tal criteria, suppliers face a clear financial incentive to invest in greener production methods.
China’s experience is instructive: after adopting GPP through its Government Procurement
Law in 2002 and expanding the Energy Conservation and Environmental Labelling Product list,
Page 1 of 24
, UNISA | MNO3603 Green Procurement and Sustainable Development
domestic manufacturers began redesigning product lines to qualify for government contracts
(Dion et al., 2015). This is not incidental. A guaranteed large-volume, long-term buyer changes
the risk calculus for a supplier contemplating a costly retooling of its manufacturing process.
The purchasing power argument also works at a systemic level. Sonnichsen and Clement
(2020) found that when public buyers in the European Union consistently demanded products
with lower lifecycle environmental costs, supplier innovation accelerated, particularly in en-
ergy hardware and construction materials. South African state-owned enterprises such as
Eskom and Transnet, given their procurement volumes, could exercise comparable influence
if GPP criteria were consistently applied in their supply chain requirements.
Table 1: Comparison: Traditional vs Green Procurement Criteria
Criterion Traditional Procurement Green Procurement
Price basis Lowest initial cost Whole life value
Product specification Technical performance Technical + environmental
Supplier selection Price and delivery Price, delivery, ISO/ecolabel
Post-use considera- Not included End-of-life and recyclability
tion
Social impact Rarely assessed Employment and health impacts
considered
1.3 Environmental Effects Across the Product Lifecycle
Products procured by the public sector carry environmental costs at every stage: raw mate-
rial extraction, manufacturing, transport, use, and disposal. The lifecycle perspective is not
merely academic; it is the basis on which GPP criteria are designed. At the extraction stage,
the mining of metals for office equipment or public infrastructure disturbs soil, depletes wa-
ter resources, and releases greenhouse gases. Manufacturing adds sulphur dioxide, nitrous
oxide, and particulate matter to the atmosphere. Once in use, energy-intensive products con-
tinue to generate emissions. At disposal, improper treatment of electronic waste, for example,
releases mercury and lead into soil and groundwater (Dion et al., 2015).
South Africa’s Listeria contamination crisis in 2017 to 2018 illustrated how poor environmen-
tal management in food production, specifically soil and water contamination, can create
catastrophic public health consequences. The contaminated Tiger Brands products that
killed over 200 people were partly traceable to environmental lapses in the supply chain.
This is precisely why lifecycle environmental assessment matters: harm can originate far
upstream from the point of purchase.
Page 2 of 24
