Kristiina Kerge: Tallinn Presented a New Greenwashing Budget
Focusing on raking leaves and supervision is far from advancing the circular economy, writes ZWEE’s economy expert Kristiina Kerge.
The question is not about promises, but about how they are linked to the budget, investments, and measurable goals. Today, that link does not exist, says Kristiina Kerge.
The City of Tallinn presents its 2026 budget as one strongly committed to environmental protection and the circular economy. Press releases and social media messages speak of maintaining park forests, improving the condition of water bodies, establishing community gardens, controlling invasive species, and opening Estonia’s largest circular economy center in Lasnamäe. The message is simple and positive: the city is taking action.
Unfortunately, this is an example of greenwashing – presenting activities as more environmentally friendly than they actually are. When examining the budget and its contents more closely, it becomes clear that no new systemic investments are being made to advance the circular economy, even though this is precisely what the Tallinn Circular Economy Development Plan adopted in 2025 requires.
The development plan sets clear priorities: waste prevention, environmentally sustainable and circular public procurement, supporting companies in developing new circular solutions, strengthening the capacity of municipal institutions, and systematically applying circular economy monitoring and indicators. These are activities that create long-term impact. Yet in the budget, they are either missing or replaced by communication efforts and supervision.
“The emphasis is on what is visible, easily communicated, and politically safe: raking and supervision. What is missing is the more complex but inevitable work – a systemic transition to a circular economy.”
€2.1 million in investments, we read in the press release. But upon closer examination, the content does not support the claim in the same statement about “promoting circular economy principles” in its strategic sense.
For example, improvements to public space facilities are presented as investments. While these do enhance the living environment, they do not replace systems that would help the city procure circular products and services, support a repair culture, or reduce the use of virgin raw materials.
Nor do the operating expenses for circular economy activities (€4.88 million) support the image created in communications. A large portion of these costs is related to waste management organization, waste transportation, and supervision. Awareness-raising activities and training programs are mainly directed at children and young people, which is important in itself, but does not build the substantive capacity of city institutions and departments as clearly required by the development plan.
Particularly problematic is the claim that stronger supervision “helps create a system where less waste is generated.” Supervision is necessary, but it does not create a preventive system. The circular economy begins with procurement policy, service design, and informed choices – not with control after waste has already been generated.
At the city council budget debate on January 22, it was confirmed that circular economy and environmentally sustainable procurement principles will certainly be ensured in future procurements. Similar wording is repeated in public statements: certainly, certainly, certainly… But the issue is not promises; it is how they are linked to the budget, investments, and measurable objectives. Today, that link does not exist.
Given that parliamentary elections will take place in 2027, voters can draw fairly clear conclusions from Tallinn’s example about what the current city coalition’s environmental policy looks like in practice. The emphasis is on what is visible, easily communicated, and politically safe: raking and supervision. Missing is the more complex but necessary work – the systemic transition to a circular economy agreed upon in the co-created Circular Economy Development Plan.
If city leaders publicly invite entrepreneurs to make proposals and promise to “certainly take them into account,” that should be taken seriously. Now is precisely the right time to ask how the budget will be aligned with the Circular Economy Development Plan, which investments will genuinely create long-term environmental benefits, and when slogans will be replaced by measurable results.
