For Mathias Egelund, that contradiction has become a central question.
As Head of Teqcycle at Foxway and one of the company’s leading voices on lifecycle extension, he works closely with enterprises, public sector organizations and resellers navigating the shift toward refurbished and remanufactured tech.
“Procurement systems were built around buying new. For decades, new hardware was the only credible option. Tender frameworks, risk models and supplier agreements still reflect that reality. Refurbished tech has matured rapidly, but procurement culture hasn’t evolved at the same pace. The real challenge today isn’t the tech – it’s updating procurement frameworks to treat lifecycle extension as a standard option,” he says.
This gap also helps explain why sustainability ambitions often fail to translate into purchasing decisions. Many organizations emphasize circularity and emissions reductions, yet those goals rarely appear in tender criteria.
“Sustainability is influencing strategy, but not always procurement behavior,” Egelund explains. “Many organizations want to reduce emissions and extend device lifecycles, but those ambitions don’t always translate into tender criteria. The shift happens when sustainability becomes measurable – carbon avoided, years of life extended, circular recovery rates. Once those metrics enter procurement, sustainability moves from messaging to operational reality.”
“Refurbished adoption is less about tech and more about governance,” he continues. “Procurement teams are responsible for risk mitigation and supplier stability, so introducing refurbished often requires adjustments to tender language, warranty expectations and lifecycle assumptions.”
A market still finding its shape
Even as demand grows, the refurbished ecosystem is still evolving — something that can influence buyer confidence.
“If we’re honest, the market is still uneven. The refurbished ecosystem ranges from highly automated industrial facilities to smaller traders. That variation naturally creates different quality levels. But the industry is rapidly professionalizing. Standardized testing, traceability and industrial refurbishment processes are steadily raising the bar,” Egelund says.
For large organizations, however, quality alone isn’t enough.
“Enterprises need predictability and reliability,” he continues. “That means consistent refurbishment standards, reliable stock availability and the ability to forecast supply. When refurbished devices offer the same planning certainty as new hardware, they become much easier to include in tenders.”
Adoption can still slow down — often because of perceived risk.
He explains; “Price matters, but risk perception often decides the outcome. Even when refurbished offers clear cost and sustainability advantages, buyers sometimes worry about reliability, supply consistency or user experience.”
From alternative to default
Despite these concerns, the market is gradually shifting. In some regions, refurbished devices are already becoming part of standard procurement strategies.
“In some markets, this shift has already begun,” says Egelund. “Refurbished devices are increasingly integrated into procurement strategies, particularly where public procurement frameworks include refurbished as an option. It’s still early in many regions, but as organizations focus more on lifecycle value and carbon reduction, refurbished will increasingly become part of the default mix.”
Part of that shift is also driven by forces beyond procurement itself.
“Both regulation and economics are pushing this change,” he says. “Regulation is increasing transparency around product lifecycles and environmental impact, while economic realities encourage organizations to extract more value from existing hardware. When sustainability goals align with financial incentives, change accelerates.”
The cost of not extending lifecycles
Ultimately, the question may not only be why organizations should extend device lifecycles – but what the cost is when they don’t.
“The cost is both environmental and economic. Manufacturing accounts for most of a device’s carbon footprint. Replacing hardware prematurely simply repeats that footprint,” Egelund says. “At the same time, organizations leave significant value unused when devices are retired early. Extending device lifecycles is one of the simplest ways to reduce emissions while improving resource efficiency and cost optimization.”
So why are we still buying new by default?
According to Egelund, the answer has little to do with tech itself. Refurbished devices can already compete on quality, performance and sustainability. The real shift will happen when procurement frameworks, risk models and decision-making structures begin to reflect that reality. Only then will lifecycle extension move from an alternative option to the natural starting point.
To explore this topic further, Foxway recently hosted a webinar titled “Why Device Lifecycles Matter More Than Ever.” The session dives deeper into the economic, environmental and procurement challenges discussed in this article – and why extending device lifecycles is becoming a strategic priority for organizations. You can watch the full webinar here:
Sustainability Recommerce
