ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIENCE OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN IMPLEMENTING GREEN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND LESSONS FOR UZBEKISTAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20701313Abstract
This article examines the international experience of implementing green public procurement
(GPP) and derives practical lessons applicable to Uzbekistan. The study analyses GPP frameworks in South
Korea, Germany, China, the European Union, and Kazakhstan, focusing on legislative foundations, institutional
mechanisms, and measurable outcomes. A comparative methodology and content analysis of official policy
documents were employed. The findings reveal that countries achieving significant GPP penetration share
three key success factors: mandatory legislative obligations, centralized product certification systems, and
comprehensive capacity-building programmes for contracting authorities. The article concludes that Uzbekistan
should adopt a phased GPP roadmap anchored in national legislation, a green product catalogue, and dedicated
training infrastructure in order to align public expenditure with the goals of the Green Economy Concept of
Uzbekistan.
Keywords
green public procurement, sustainable procurement, public finance, environmental policy, Uzbekistan, comparative analysis, green economyReferences
1. Brammer, S., & Walker, H. (2011). Sustainable procurement in the public sector: An international comparative study.
2. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(4), 452–476.
3. Beschaffungsamt des Bundesministeriums des Innern. (2020). Sustainable public procurement in Germany: Status
4. and perspectives. Bonn, Germany.
5. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making.
6. Governance, 13(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121
7. European Commission. (2008). Communication on public procurement for a better environment (COM(2008) 400
8. final). European Commission.
9. Karimov, F. (2022). Green economy integration into fiscal policy of Uzbekistan in the post-pandemic context. Iqtisodiyot
10. va Ta’lim, 23(4), 60–68.
11. Kim, J., & Rhee, J. (2012). An empirical study on the impact of green public procurement on private firms’ environmental
12. performance. International Journal of Green Economics, 6(3), 288–305.
13. McCrudden, C. (2004). Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural Resources Forum, 28(4), 257–
14. Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea. (2022). Annual report on green product procurement. Korea
15. Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI).
16. OECD. (2019). Government at a glance 2019. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8ccf5c38-en
17. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidenti. (2022, January 28). 2022–2026-yillarga mo‘ljallangan Yangi O‘zbekistonning
18. taraqqiyot strategiyasi to‘g‘risida (PF-60-son Farmoni).
19. Testa, F., Annunziata, E., Iraldo, F., & Frey, M. (2016). Drawbacks and opportunities of green public procurement.
20. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4322–4334.
21. Umarov, B., & Nazarov, A. (2021). Public procurement reform and transparency in Uzbekistan. Iqtisodiyot va Ta’lim,
22. (3), 45–53.
23. UNDP Kazakhstan. (2022). Assessment of green public procurement pilot projects in Kazakhstan. United Nations
24. Development Programme.
25. Walker, H., & Brammer, S. (2009). Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public sector. Supply Chain
26. Management: An International Journal, 14(2), 128–137.
27. Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., & Sarkis, J. (2013). Motivating green public procurement in China. Journal of Environmental
28. Management, 126, 245–252.
29. Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (n.d.). Official website. https://www.minfin.uz
30. Ministry of Ecology, Environmental Protection and Climate Change of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (n.d.). Official
31. website. https://www.ecology.gov.uz
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
