Why OEMs’ Circular Economy Strategies Fall Short – Analyzing Cisco’s Approach

In an era where sustainable practices are becoming a business necessity, many Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), including tech giants like Cisco, have made headlines for their ambitious circular economy initiatives. But as these companies implement circular principles, we must ask: are these efforts truly addressing the root of the problem, or are they merely green marketing strategies?

Cisco’s recently published whitepaper, which outlines their journey towards embedding circularity into product design, offers a view into their strategy. While there are notable steps in the right direction, a closer analysis reveals critical gaps in their approach, raising questions about the effectiveness of OEM-led circular economy strategies. Below, we explore the key points where Cisco's approach might fall short of genuine circularity.

1. Producer-Driven Waste Generation

Cisco claims a commitment to circularity, yet they drive demand for constant product upgrades. This approach, while profitable, fuels consumption cycles, which fundamentally contradicts circular economy principles. Real circularity would focus on reducing the need for new products, extending the life of existing equipment, and creating repair-friendly, upgradable designs. Instead, frequent refresh cycles continue, indicating that Cisco’s circular economy efforts might be more about marketing than true sustainability.#

2. High-Impact Production Remains Unchecked

Cisco's plan includes incorporating 50% post-consumer recycled plastic by 2025—a seemingly positive step. However, this goal doesn’t address the much higher environmental impact of sourcing and processing other critical materials like metals, which have a larger carbon footprint than plastic. To truly lead in circularity, a comprehensive approach addressing all high-impact resources, beyond plastic, is essential.

3. Circularity as a Retrofit, Not a Design Ethos

Cisco’s circular design evaluation tool scores products for circularity after their primary design decisions have been made. This creates a reactive approach where circular principles become “retrofits” instead of integrated, guiding standards. To build truly circular products, circularity should inform the design from the outset, guiding every decision rather than becoming an afterthought or check on a list.

4. Selective Transparency and the Risk of Greenwashing

By highlighting specific efforts, like foam packaging reduction, Cisco risks presenting a skewed picture of its environmental impact. While these metrics make for compelling headlines, they can obscure the broader environmental costs of product manufacturing, distribution, and disposal. Such selective transparency may give stakeholders a false sense of progress and represents a form of greenwashing that minimizes the larger impacts of production.

5. Lack of Downstream Accountability

A significant flaw in Cisco’s circular economy model is the lack of visibility into the product’s end-of-life journey. Circularity does not end at the point of sale; true circularity extends to the proper handling, recycling, and repurposing of products after use. Cisco should ensure that third-party recyclers and refurbishers in their chain can manage these products responsibly. Without this accountability, Cisco’s products risk contributing to the fast-growing e-waste stream.

6. Corporate Structure Limits on Real Circularity

Cisco’s governance model—comprising steering, oversight, and audit committees—is an important step. However, this compartmentalized structure may limit the integration of circularity across the company. In contrast, true circularity requires an interconnected approach, with circular principles integrated into the very DNA of the organization. Cisco’s strategy might be more robust if it prioritized seamless alignment across all business units, transcending the boundaries of specific departments.

7. Product Design vs. Replacement Cycles – A Contradiction

While Cisco highlights modular and longer-life product designs, these same products are often marketed with incentives for regular replacements. Encouraging frequent upgrades undermines the longevity benefits of modularity and repairable components. Genuine circularity would see Cisco promoting software and hardware compatibility to prolong the useful life of each product generation instead of urging consumers to buy new.

Moving from Circular Promises to Circular Practices

Cisco’s circular economy initiatives undeniably incorporate valuable steps toward sustainability, yet they reveal critical limitations that echo across the tech industry. If OEMs like Cisco want to be true champions of the circular economy, they must go beyond marketing strategies and embrace structural changes that reduce consumption cycles, eliminate selective transparency, and ensure accountability throughout the entire lifecycle.

This shift requires a commitment to extending product lifecycles, prioritizing upstream and downstream responsibility, and embedding circularity at the heart of every business decision. Until then, the question remains: are these OEM-led initiatives true circular economy practices or just another iteration of “sustainability as a selling point?”