Individual Questions

Question 4, the first in the section, relates to the project vision and asked whether CEDaCI is accelerating development of a sectoral Circular Economy: the response was almost unanimously positive and even the participant who responded negatively (H) qualified their response and commented that it was impossible "*because it is such a huge task but the project is raising awareness of the Circular Economy and is making decision makers think.*" All other responses were very positive: and 4 further participants ((B), (D), (F), and (G)) commented that the project is raising awareness and "*has opened conversation that wasn't there before and people didn't bother thinking about before' 'despite limited resources.*"

Awareness raising is the first step in the development of the Circular Economy; second steps involve supporting and empowering businesses and organisations to make change. The participants were again very encouraging and commented that "*It is the first (*project*) to investigate the challenge analytically*" and "*the potential is huge*" (B); "*the project is also bridging the gap between theory and practical guidance*" (C) and the output (specifically the digital Circular Data Centre Compass (CDCC)) "*is immensely valuable*" (F) and will "*support public and private organisations to make informed decisions about procurement and practice*" (E). Similarly, if we "*make those (*tools*) available to organisations and they are able to use them easily and adopt them, you've solved a huge issue that most places don't have the time to look at. If you simplify the process for them, it removes huge barriers*" (F).

Question 5 was designed to find out whether CEDaCI is supporting the DCI in general; all participants responded very positively, highlighted subjects were (again) awareness, circularity, green procurement, the public sector, market visibility, and the CDCC digital tool. The responses acknowledged the wider benefits and impact of CEDaCI; for example, "*The tools that you have provided will be hugely helpful for operators who currently still are very energy and carbon focused and they are not thinking about the embedded carbon in the assets that they use*" (I). The link between economics and sustainability was repeated and "*Anybody who adopts your tools and uses them properly should make more money. This means that they can save the planet and create social value and sustainable options for the future*" (F). The project output has the potential to influence change "*provided that important buyers like the government and others start requesting this information and demanding action it will drive the market accordingly*" (C). This could be realised because one participant is already referencing CEDaCI to government bodies, such as DEFRA, who are developing a Cloud Sustainability Standard and another wants to "*showcase the CDCC to the Cross-Government Technology Group to get feedback and as a game changer for their thinking*" (C).

Questions 6 and 7 were designed to gather more specific feedback about the impact of CEDaCI on the participants and their organisations now and in the future; some of the subjects identified were the same as those raised by other questions (business, future, and growth) but they also included planning and support. Again, all participants responded positively and commented that support for current business practice was highly beneficial; for example, "*Those involved in sustainability impact roles can use this information to make their case in their organisations for sustainable choices to be made*" (D). Examples of specific projectpartnership tasks include checking other LCAs and carbon assessments in the public domain and creating new LCAs of open source hardware; participants (B) and (C) agreed that the CEDaCI team bring different specialist knowledge to their organisations and that external analysis and reports increase objectivity and credibility ("*The findings* . . . *. published by someone like you will be invaluable*" (G)). They also expect that project output will continue to support them in the future, as more output like the CDCC and Pilot projects are completed. Several participants also made suggestions for future work and collaboration after the

project: for example, "*You have the data with the Compass and when we talk to the big systems integrator about the data centre contract, I think CEDaCI could help support us*" (E). Similarly, "*It's likely that sustainability principle will be added to our code of practice so you could look at how to mesh your thinking and tool into how the public sector operates*" (C).

Like question 4, question 8 was designed to learn whether the project process and output was fulfilling a key aim: as explained above, the DCI is fragmented and silo working is endemic across subsectors. Development of a Circular Economy requires a holistic approach and input from representatives from all life cycle stages across an entire industry. CEDaCI is seeking to do this, and although the (internal) team recognises that there is some progress and shortfalls, external feedback from participants is essential to confirm or negate this perception. Consequently, participants were asked whether the mix and composition of partners, Working Group, and Co-creation Workshop members is right. The question encouraged comments around the environment, suppliers, manufacturers, and users from 7/9 participants. The feedback was mixed, but this was expected because, despite major efforts to recruit DC operators, most said they were too busy to join the activities although consultants with prior experience of running data centres were a good substitute. A typical comment was "*There was a great mix of people. There could be more users involved in the development process*" (I). Similarly, the team were unable to engage manufacturers in the project regularly; they visited a global IT producer's site in Scotland, but their production plant, like those of other manufacturers, is outside the UK so the visit was to a "*technology renewal*" reuse and recycling centre. Again, low engagement was due to high volume of work and other typical comments were "*End users and manufacturers lacked representation, but that is understandable as many are distributed globally*" (H). The participants believe that there is potential to engage with more users and manufacturers when the outputs—and especially the CDCC tool—are complete.

Question 9 related to perception of the Working Groups and Co-creation Workshops and the value of stakeholder engagement: 8/9 participants responded when asked whether they had taken part in similar events prior to the CEDaCI events and 50% (A), (C), (D), (F) said no, or not in the way that the CEDaCI activities were run, and the other 50% (B), (G), (H), (I) said yes but made comments like "*I've learnt more from CEDaCI than from anywhere else apart from our own research*" (B). When asked about the benefits of the cross-sectoral WGs and CCWs to the CEDaCI project, and to them as individuals, all 8 participants responded very positively and the general consensus was that the events were very successful in initiating different ways of thinking about problems. For example, "*The key thing is a change of consciousness. You are getting people to think about new ideas*" (D). The format also encouraged open and objective conversations, which participants really appreciated: "*To get all those people involved was a major challenge, discussing openly problems and solutions. They are able to freely talk about ideas and mutual benefit*" (F); "*it helps to ensure that you can take account of scoping issues by bringing together the supply chain and actors that might not normally come together. It's good to hear different perspectives and have a balanced view, without it being influenced by vested interests*" (B). Participants also valued the interdisciplinary composition of the meetings and (I) "*found it interesting to hear other people's perceptions and views that I would not have had access to otherwise*" while (G) said "*each one of the meetings felt useful"* and "*the biggest benefit is meeting other people with other perspectives. The community aspect is one of the benefits of working groups*".

In the last question (10), participants were asked for suggestions about future activities or events: the response was encouraging and indicated that there is scope for future work to extend the impact of CEDaCI by organising a "*meeting or event where you discuss your approach to developing those tools and how you can help others to build similar things or transfer to different industries*" (F). Ethical procurement issues (C) and understanding "*more about the chemical processes that are used to extract elements*" (H) and (in response to HM Treasury Business Case) (C) said that factoring "*sustainability into business decisions and working that through to monetised values* . . . *would be really useful*"; broadening research and modelling to include all types of current and emerging DC equipment (D), were also highlighted as

subjects for further investigation. The most significant suggestion that was made by several participants, concerning wider dissemination of project output to inform and educate the DCI, other industries, and the public: for example, (I) suggested a briefing event or blog for members of the technology trade association, (H) felt that publicising information about the overall manufacturing process would generate interest in the industry, (G) will be happy to do a joint webinar for their business community so they can see the end results once the tool is released, and (B) said "*you can reach a lot wider audience and you can educate them about what's in the technology and from a sustainability point of view, it has the benefit of educating people about data and ICT as well.*"
