Last updated: 2 May 2026

The 14 Net Zero Questions in UK Public Sector Tenders (and how to answer them well)

If you bid for UK public sector contracts, you've probably been asked about Net Zero. For contracts above £5 million a year the Carbon Reduction Plan is a mandatory pass/fail gate — but sub-£5m buyers are increasingly asking the same questions as a quality filter. Knowing the requirement exists and actually writing strong answers are different skills entirely.

Most SMEs lose marks on sustainability questions not because they lack the data, but because they don't understand what evaluators are looking for. They write vague commitments where buyers want specifics. They cite aspirations where buyers want evidence.

This guide lists the 14 most common Net Zero and carbon questions that appear in UK public sector tenders. For each one, you'll find what the buyer is actually assessing, a worked example of a strong response, and the mistakes that cost suppliers marks.

I'm Paul Jacobs, founder of CarbonVerified. I built this guide from real tender documents published on Contracts Finder, Find a Tender, and frameworks run by Crown Commercial Service.

Q1. What is your organisation's current carbon footprint?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Please provide details of your organisation's current carbon footprint, including Scope 1, Scope 2, and relevant Scope 3 emissions, measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e)."

What the buyer is actually checking

They want to see three things: that you've measured your emissions (not just guessed), that you've used a credible methodology (the GHG Protocol or similar), and that you understand the difference between Scope 1, 2, and 3. Buyers scoring this question will look for specific numbers, a defined reporting period, and a clear boundary statement explaining what's included in your measurement.

They're not expecting perfection. An honest disclosure of a small footprint with clear methodology scores better than a vague claim of carbon neutrality with no supporting data.

Worked example answer

"For the reporting year April 2025 to March 2026, our total measured emissions were 42.7 tCO2e. This was calculated using the UK Government's DESNZ 2025 greenhouse gas conversion factors and follows the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.

Our Scope 1 emissions (natural gas for heating at our Newport office) totalled 8.3 tCO2e. Scope 2 emissions (purchased electricity, location-based) were 12.1 tCO2e. Relevant Scope 3 categories included business travel by car (5.8 tCO2e), employee commuting based on a staff survey (9.2 tCO2e), and water supply and treatment (0.4 tCO2e). Waste data was estimated at 6.9 tCO2e based on average commercial waste benchmarks for an office of our size.

Our organisational boundary covers all operations at our single UK site. We do not currently operate from overseas. Our full Carbon Reduction Plan, including baseline year data and reduction targets, is published at carbonverified.uk."

Common mistakes

  • Stating "we are carbon neutral" without providing the underlying numbers.
  • Mixing up Scope 1 and Scope 2 (gas is Scope 1, electricity is Scope 2).
  • Ignoring Scope 3 entirely. Even if your Scope 3 data is estimated, including it shows maturity.
  • Not specifying the reporting period. "Our emissions are 40 tonnes" means nothing without a timeframe.
  • Using outdated conversion factors. Buyers know the difference between 2020 and 2025 DESNZ factors.

Q2. Do you have a Carbon Reduction Plan that meets PPN 06/21 requirements?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Please confirm that you have a Carbon Reduction Plan in place that meets the requirements of Procurement Policy Note 06/21 and is published on your organisation's website. Provide the URL."

What the buyer is actually checking

This is often a pass/fail gate. The buyer needs to confirm that your CRP exists, that it follows the Cabinet Office template (or covers the same required sections), and that it's publicly accessible. They'll click the link. If it leads to a 404, a generic sustainability page, or a PDF that doesn't match the required format, you fail.

The required sections are: your baseline emissions, current reporting year emissions, a commitment to achieving Net Zero by 2050, and the specific reduction measures you've adopted or plan to adopt. The plan must be signed off by a director or equivalent.

Worked example answer

"Yes. Our Carbon Reduction Plan meets the requirements of PPN 06/21 and is published on our website at: example-company.co.uk/carbon-reduction-plan

The plan includes our baseline emissions for FY 2023/24 (48.1 tCO2e), our current reporting year emissions for FY 2025/26 (42.7 tCO2e, representing an 11.2% reduction), our commitment to achieving Net Zero by 2050, and the specific measures we have implemented and plan to implement. These include switching to a 100% renewable electricity tariff (completed Q1 2025), installing LED lighting across our premises (completed Q3 2025), implementing a hybrid working policy to reduce commuting emissions, and transitioning our company vehicle to electric by 2027.

The plan was approved and signed by Paul Jacobs, Director, on 15 April 2026. It is reviewed annually. Our emissions data is calculated using CarbonVerified.uk with official DESNZ 2025 conversion factors."

Common mistakes

  • Providing a link to a general sustainability statement rather than a proper CRP in the required format.
  • Forgetting to include the director sign-off. The Cabinet Office template requires this.
  • Listing reduction measures without any timeline or ownership. "We plan to reduce emissions" is not a plan.
  • Not updating the CRP annually. Buyers will check the date. A plan from 2022 with no updates suggests you did the minimum and moved on.
  • Publishing the CRP as a deeply nested PDF that's hard to find. Make it prominent on your website.

Q3. What is your baseline year for emissions reporting, and why was it chosen?

How it typically appears in tenders

"State the baseline year used for your carbon emissions reporting. Explain why this year was selected and confirm that it will be maintained as the fixed reference point for measuring future reductions."

What the buyer is actually checking

The baseline year is the fixed reference point against which all your claimed reductions are measured. Buyers want to confirm that you've chosen a meaningful baseline — ideally the earliest year for which you have reliable, complete data — and that you haven't gamed the system by selecting an artificially high year to make reductions look easier than they are.

A strong answer explains the rationale, acknowledges any data limitations, and commits to restating the baseline if a significant structural change occurs (such as an acquisition or the disposal of a major site). The GHG Protocol requires baseline recalculation in these circumstances, and buyers familiar with the standard will expect you to know this.

Worked example answer

"Our baseline year is FY 2023/24 (April 2023 to March 2024). We selected this year because it is the earliest financial year for which we hold complete, auditable utility billing data, employee commuting survey results, and business travel records across all operations. Prior to this, our records were incomplete following a 2022 office relocation.

Our baseline emissions were 48.1 tCO2e, calculated using DESNZ 2023 conversion factors. In line with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, we have committed to restating the baseline if our organisational boundary changes materially — for example, if we open a second site or acquire another business. Our current emissions for FY 2025/26 are 42.7 tCO2e, representing an 11.2% reduction against baseline. Our baseline data and methodology are documented in our Carbon Reduction Plan, published at carbonverified.uk/crp."

Common mistakes

  • Choosing a baseline year without explanation, leaving evaluators to wonder whether it was selected opportunistically.
  • Using a COVID-affected year (2020 or 2021) as a baseline, which inflates apparent reductions because emissions were artificially low during lockdowns. Buyers are aware of this tactic.
  • Changing the baseline year between tender submissions without explanation, which undermines credibility.
  • Failing to state what happens to the baseline if the organisation changes significantly. The GHG Protocol requires recalculation — not mentioning this suggests you haven't read it.
  • Reporting reductions against a moving average rather than a fixed baseline, which makes comparisons meaningless.

Q4. What specific measures have you implemented to reduce your carbon emissions?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe the specific actions and measures you have taken to reduce your carbon emissions to date. Please include the emission source addressed, the intervention, the date of implementation, and the estimated or measured reduction in tCO2e."

What the buyer is actually checking

This is where vague sustainability commitments get separated from genuine action. Evaluators want a list of specific, completed interventions — not intentions. Each measure should have a named emission source, a clear description of the action taken, an implementation date, and a quantified impact in tCO2e where possible.

Scoring typically rewards breadth (addressing multiple scopes), depth (showing the reduction was meaningful), and credibility (providing measured rather than estimated reductions where feasible). "We encourage staff to turn off lights" scores close to zero. "We replaced 840 halogen fittings with LED across two sites in August 2025, reducing electricity consumption by 18,200 kWh per year, equivalent to 4.2 tCO2e at 2025 DESNZ factors" scores well.

Worked example answer

"Since our FY 2023/24 baseline, we have implemented the following measures:

Renewable electricity (Scope 2): We switched to a 100% REGO-backed renewable electricity tariff in April 2025. This eliminated our location-based Scope 2 emissions of 12.1 tCO2e per year. We continue to report a market-based figure of zero and a location-based figure for transparency.

LED lighting retrofit (Scope 1/2): In September 2025 we replaced all fluorescent lighting at our Newport office with LED fittings, reducing annual electricity consumption by 11,400 kWh, saving approximately 2.5 tCO2e per year at 2025 DESNZ factors.

Hybrid working policy (Scope 3 — commuting): Implemented in May 2024, our formal hybrid working policy allows all staff to work from home three days per week. Our 2025 commuting survey showed a 41% reduction in total commuting miles versus baseline, saving an estimated 3.8 tCO2e per year.

Business travel reduction (Scope 3 — travel): We replaced four recurring client review meetings per year with video calls. Rail travel has replaced domestic flights for all journeys under five hours. Combined saving: approximately 1.4 tCO2e per year.

Total verified reduction against baseline: 5.4 tCO2e (11.2%). Our Carbon Reduction Plan, including supporting utility data and survey methodology, is available on request."

Common mistakes

  • Listing intentions rather than completed actions. "We plan to switch to renewables" is not a measure implemented.
  • No quantification. Every measure should carry a tCO2e estimate, even if based on published benchmarks.
  • Addressing only one scope. Buyers want to see that you've thought about Scope 1, 2, and at least some Scope 3 categories.
  • Claiming generic cultural changes (paper-free offices, recycling bins) without any associated tCO2e reduction. These score poorly unless accompanied by waste data.
  • Not specifying implementation dates, which makes it impossible to tell whether measures are real or planned.

Q5. What are your carbon reduction targets, and are they aligned with science-based targets?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Please describe your organisation's short-term and long-term carbon reduction targets. State whether these targets have been validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) or are consistent with a 1.5°C pathway."

What the buyer is actually checking

Buyers want targets that are time-bound, measurable, and grounded in climate science rather than marketing convenience. A target of "50% reduction by 2030" sounds impressive but means nothing unless it's anchored to a baseline year and justified against a credible decarbonisation pathway. The gold standard is SBTi validation, which requires a near-term target (typically 50% Scope 1 and 2 reduction by 2030 from a 2020 baseline) and a long-term Net Zero commitment consistent with 1.5°C.

Most SMEs haven't submitted to SBTi, and that's fine — buyers know this. What they're looking for is whether your targets are directionally consistent with the 1.5°C pathway, whether you have both a short-term and long-term target, and whether you've connected them to specific reduction actions rather than leaving them as aspirations.

Worked example answer

"Our targets are set against our FY 2023/24 baseline of 48.1 tCO2e:

Short-term target (2030): Reduce absolute Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 50% against baseline by 31 March 2030. This is consistent with the 1.5°C pathway reduction rate recommended for small enterprises by the SME Climate Hub framework, which we use as our reference standard in the absence of a formal SBTi submission.

Long-term target (2050): Achieve Net Zero across Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3 categories by 31 March 2050, with interim targets of 70% absolute reduction by 2040.

We have not yet submitted our targets to the Science Based Targets initiative, as the submission process is currently disproportionate in cost for an organisation of our size. We are monitoring the SBTi SME route and intend to submit by December 2027. Our current trajectory — 11.2% absolute reduction in two years — is tracking ahead of our 2030 interim milestone.

Our targets are reviewed annually as part of our Carbon Reduction Plan update and are approved by the Director."

Common mistakes

  • Setting only a long-term Net Zero 2050 target with no interim milestones. Without shorter-term targets, there's no accountability mechanism.
  • Expressing targets as intensity-based (per employee, per £revenue) rather than absolute reductions. Most tender questions require absolute reductions.
  • Claiming SBTi validation without actually being listed on the SBTi website. Evaluators will check.
  • Failing to link targets to specific reduction measures. A target without a roadmap is a wish.
  • Not anchoring targets to a baseline year, making them impossible to evaluate.

Q6. How do you monitor and report on your environmental performance?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe the systems and processes you have in place to monitor, measure, and report on your environmental performance, including how frequently data is reviewed and by whom."

What the buyer is actually checking

Buyers want to see governance, not just good intentions. This question tests whether your environmental performance is systematically tracked — with defined data sources, review frequencies, named roles, and a process for acting on the findings — or whether it's compiled once a year during a tender deadline.

A strong answer describes what data is collected (utility bills, mileage logs, waste manifests), how often it is reviewed (monthly, quarterly, annually), who is responsible (a named role, not just "management"), and what reporting outputs are produced (internal dashboard, published CRP update, board report). Evidence of continuous monitoring rather than retrospective compilation scores significantly higher.

Worked example answer

"We monitor environmental performance on a quarterly and annual cycle. Our Director holds overall accountability, supported by our Office Manager who maintains the environmental data register.

Quarterly: Utility consumption (gas, electricity, water) is recorded from supplier invoices and entered into CarbonVerified. Business travel mileage is collected from expense claims. The Office Manager reviews the quarterly tCO2e figure against the same quarter in the prior year and flags any significant variance to the Director.

Annually: At the end of each financial year, we compile the full Scope 1, 2, and 3 inventory using official DESNZ conversion factors for that year. A commuting survey is distributed to all staff in April. Results are reviewed by the Director and used to update our Carbon Reduction Plan, which is republished by 30 June each year.

Our Carbon Reduction Plan is publicly available on our website. We do not currently produce a standalone sustainability report, but our emissions data and reduction trajectory are disclosed in full within the CRP."

Common mistakes

  • Describing a process that is annual-only. Quarterly or monthly monitoring signals a more mature system.
  • Not naming a responsible role. "The management team reviews performance" is vague and scores poorly.
  • Conflating monitoring with reporting. Monitoring is internal; reporting is the output that stakeholders see. Both should be described.
  • Stating you use a spreadsheet without explaining the data sources feeding it. Evaluators want to understand the full data trail.
  • Not mentioning what happens when performance dips. A monitoring system that produces no action is not a management system.

Q7. Do you hold any environmental certifications or accreditations?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Please state whether your organisation holds any environmental management certifications or accreditations, such as ISO 14001, PAS 2060, EMAS, or equivalent. If yes, provide the certifying body, certificate number, and expiry date. If no, describe the equivalent management practices you apply."

What the buyer is actually checking

ISO 14001 is the most widely recognised environmental management system standard. PAS 2060 is the British Standards Institution's specification for carbon neutrality verification. EMAS is the EU's Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, less common in the UK post-Brexit but still accepted. Buyers ask this question because certification provides independent assurance that your environmental claims are backed by a systematic, audited management process — not just a document produced for tender purposes.

Most SMEs don't hold formal environmental certifications, and buyers know this. The key is not to pretend. If you don't hold a certification, describe the equivalent management practices in concrete terms — documented environmental policy, internal audits, management review meetings, trained staff. Claiming informal equivalence with specific practices scores much better than a non-answer.

Worked example answer

"We do not currently hold ISO 14001 or PAS 2060 certification. We have assessed the certification pathway and have identified this as a target for FY 2027/28 as part of our Carbon Reduction Plan roadmap.

In the interim, we apply the following equivalent management practices consistent with the ISO 14001 framework:

We maintain a written Environmental Policy, approved by the Director and published on our website. We conduct a quarterly environmental data review against defined KPIs (tCO2e against prior year, energy consumption kWh, business travel miles). We carry out an annual Environmental Aspects and Impacts register review, identifying our material emission sources and the controls in place. Staff receive environmental awareness training on induction and annually thereafter. Our Carbon Reduction Plan is reviewed and republished each year by 30 June.

We are also registered with the SME Climate Hub and have made a public commitment to halve emissions by 2030 and reach Net Zero by 2050."

Common mistakes

  • Claiming ISO 14001 certification without providing the certificate number and certifying body. Evaluators will verify this with UKAS.
  • Providing an expired certificate. Check the expiry date before every submission.
  • Answering "No" with nothing further. Always describe your equivalent practices if you lack certification.
  • Confusing ISO 14001 (environmental management system) with ISO 50001 (energy management) or ISO 14064 (GHG quantification). They are different standards.
  • Listing certifications held by a parent company without clarifying whether your entity is covered by the scope.

Q8. How do you manage environmental risks in your supply chain?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe how you assess and manage environmental risks within your supply chain. Include the criteria you apply when selecting suppliers and any steps you take to encourage or require suppliers to reduce their environmental impact."

What the buyer is actually checking

This question targets Scope 3 Category 1 emissions — purchased goods and services — which are typically the largest source of emissions for service businesses. Buyers want to see that you've thought about where your suppliers sit on the decarbonisation spectrum, that you have some process for assessing supplier environmental risk, and that procurement isn't a blind spot in your sustainability programme.

For most SMEs, a formal supplier environmental audit programme is disproportionate. What scores well is a tiered approach: identifying your highest-impact suppliers (by spend or emission category), asking them specific questions during procurement, and having a stated preference for suppliers with credible environmental credentials. Even if you don't mandate it, demonstrating a systematic preference is better than silence.

Worked example answer

"We manage supply chain environmental risk through a tiered assessment approach proportionate to our size as a 12-person professional services business.

We have identified our highest-impact supplier categories as: IT hardware and cloud infrastructure (embodied carbon and data centre energy), print and paper supplies, and professional services sub-contractors. For each of these categories, we include an environmental assessment question in our supplier selection process, asking suppliers to provide either a Carbon Reduction Plan, an environmental policy, or evidence of ISO 14001 certification.

We have a stated preference for suppliers who can demonstrate a published environmental commitment. In 2025, we switched our cloud hosting provider to one operating on 100% renewable energy (AWS EU-West-2 region, backed by their renewable energy certificates). We ask all sub-contractors who deliver work on our behalf to confirm they comply with our Environmental Policy as a condition of engagement. Our supply chain emissions are included in our Scope 3 Category 1 estimate, currently assessed at 6.9 tCO2e per year using spend-based emission factors from the DEFRA Environmentally Extended Input-Output model."

Common mistakes

  • Ignoring Scope 3 Category 1 entirely. If you buy goods or services from others, you have supply chain emissions.
  • Claiming a supplier audit programme that doesn't exist. Evaluators can ask for evidence.
  • Treating all suppliers as equally material regardless of their emissions impact. A tiered, risk-based approach is more credible.
  • Not including supply chain Scope 3 in your inventory. "We only report Scope 1 and 2" is an increasingly weak answer.
  • Applying no selection criteria whatsoever. Even a stated preference for suppliers with environmental policies is better than nothing.

Q9. What is your policy on offsetting residual emissions?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe your organisation's approach to carbon offsetting. If you purchase carbon credits or offsets, please specify the standard to which these are verified, the project types funded, and the proportion of your total emissions that offsets represent."

What the buyer is actually checking

Offsetting is a legitimately contested area in procurement evaluation, and buyers are aware of greenwashing risks. A strong answer acknowledges the hierarchy: reduce first, offset only what cannot be reduced. Buyers are sceptical of suppliers who claim carbon neutrality through mass offsetting without evidence of genuine reduction efforts.

If you do purchase offsets, the quality of the standard matters enormously. Verified Carbon Standard (Verra VCS), Gold Standard, and the UK's own Woodland Carbon Code and Peatland Code are credible. Generic "tree planting" offsets without a verified standard attract scrutiny. The best answers describe a policy that prioritises avoidance and reduction, uses offsets only for genuinely residual emissions, and applies a credible verification standard to any credits purchased.

Worked example answer

"Our offset policy follows the mitigation hierarchy: we prioritise avoiding and reducing emissions over purchasing offsets. We do not currently make claims of carbon neutrality, and we do not use offsets as a substitute for genuine reduction activity.

We do purchase a small volume of voluntary carbon credits to compensate for emissions that are currently unavoidable — specifically, occasional long-haul travel that cannot reasonably be replaced by alternatives. In FY 2025/26, this represented 2.1 tCO2e, which we offset through credits verified to the Gold Standard for Global Goals. The project funded is a clean cookstove programme in Uganda (project reference GS-VER-2024-0391), chosen because it delivers verified co-benefits including health and gender equity outcomes alongside the carbon removal.

We do not intend to use offsetting to bridge the gap to our 2030 reduction targets. Our targets are defined on an absolute reduction basis and must be met through operational changes. Offsetting is reserved for residual, unavoidable emissions only."

Common mistakes

  • Claiming carbon neutrality primarily through offsetting without evidence of meaningful reduction efforts. This is a significant red flag for evaluators.
  • Purchasing unverified or low-quality offsets (such as generic tree planting without a verified standard) and presenting them as equivalent to gold-standard credits.
  • Not disclosing the proportion of emissions covered by offsets versus genuine reductions. Transparency on this distinction matters.
  • Using offsets to meet interim reduction targets rather than limiting them to genuinely residual emissions.
  • Not naming the standard (VCS, Gold Standard, Woodland Carbon Code). "We buy carbon offsets" with no further detail scores poorly.

Q10. How do you engage your staff in sustainability initiatives?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe how you communicate your environmental commitments to staff and how you involve employees in identifying and delivering sustainability improvements. Provide examples of staff-led initiatives."

What the buyer is actually checking

Buyers use this question to assess whether sustainability is embedded in your organisational culture or exists only as a compliance exercise driven by one person. Genuine staff engagement is a leading indicator of long-term environmental performance. An organisation where all staff understand the carbon targets and where at least some improvement ideas originate from employees will sustain reductions better than one where only the director knows the numbers.

Evaluators reward specificity here: named training programmes, regular communication cadences, and concrete examples of staff-generated ideas that were actually implemented. Generic statements about "a culture of sustainability" score at the low end. Named initiatives, participation rates, and outcomes score at the high end.

Worked example answer

"Staff engagement in our sustainability programme operates at three levels: awareness, involvement, and ownership.

Awareness: All new starters complete a 30-minute environmental induction module covering our Carbon Reduction Plan, our current emissions figures, and each person's contribution to reducing them. Our quarterly emissions figure is shared at all-hands meetings alongside our progress against target.

Involvement: Each April, all staff complete a commuting survey used to calculate Scope 3 Category 7 emissions. The results are shared back to staff with a comparison to the prior year. We ask staff to submit environmental improvement suggestions through our intranet. In FY 2025/26, six suggestions were submitted, of which three were implemented (LED lighting in the server room, a print default of double-sided, and removal of single-use plastic cups).

Ownership: We have a designated Environmental Champion — currently our Senior Consultant — who chairs a quarterly sustainability review, maintains the environmental data register, and liaises with the Director on progress. This role is recognised in the relevant job description and annual appraisal.

In our most recent staff survey (March 2026), 87% of respondents said they understood our environmental targets, and 74% said they felt their suggestions on sustainability were taken seriously."

Common mistakes

  • Writing about intentions ("we plan to introduce environmental training") rather than implemented activities.
  • Vague language such as "we encourage a green culture" with no substantiating detail.
  • Not naming a responsible person or role. Sustainability managed by "the team" in general suggests no clear ownership.
  • Failing to mention any feedback mechanism. Engagement is two-way; describe how staff ideas reach decision-makers.
  • No metrics. Participation rates, survey results, or number of implemented suggestions make your answer verifiable.

Q11. Can you provide evidence of year-on-year emissions reductions?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Please provide evidence of year-on-year reductions in your organisation's greenhouse gas emissions. Include absolute figures in tCO2e for each year reported and identify any years in which emissions increased, with an explanation."

What the buyer is actually checking

This is the accountability question. Buyers want to see a multi-year trend, not a single year's data. They're looking for consistent, absolute reductions — and importantly, they're willing to accept a year of increase if you can explain it credibly (post-lockdown return to office, a new site, a major project requiring unusual travel). What they won't accept is an unexplained upward trend while you simultaneously claim a strong reduction programme.

The most compelling answers present the data in a table or structured list, broken down by scope. They acknowledge anomalies honestly and connect each year's outcome to the specific reduction measures that drove it. If you've only been measuring for two years, say so — but still show the comparison. Partial evidence is better than none.

Worked example answer

"The table below shows our absolute emissions by scope for each financial year since we began formal measurement. All figures use the DESNZ conversion factors applicable to the relevant reporting year.

FY 2023/24 (baseline): Scope 1: 8.3 tCO2e | Scope 2: 12.1 tCO2e | Scope 3: 27.7 tCO2e | Total: 48.1 tCO2e
FY 2024/25: Scope 1: 8.1 tCO2e | Scope 2: 11.4 tCO2e | Scope 3: 25.9 tCO2e | Total: 45.4 tCO2e (−5.6% vs baseline)
FY 2025/26: Scope 1: 7.8 tCO2e | Scope 2: 9.3 tCO2e | Scope 3: 25.6 tCO2e | Total: 42.7 tCO2e (−11.2% vs baseline)

The reduction in Scope 2 between FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26 reflects the switch to a renewable electricity tariff completed in April 2025. The modest Scope 1 reduction reflects improved boiler controls installed in November 2024. Our Scope 3 reduction is attributable to reduced commuting following our hybrid working policy. We have not had a year of emissions increase since we began measuring. Supporting data — utility invoices and commuting survey results — are available on request."

Common mistakes

  • Reporting only the most recent year. Buyers explicitly ask for a trend; one year is not a trend.
  • Presenting intensity-based reductions (per employee) when the question asks for absolute figures.
  • Failing to explain years where emissions increased. An honest explanation scores better than omission.
  • Not separating figures by scope, making it impossible for evaluators to understand where reductions came from.
  • Inconsistently applying conversion factors across years. Always state which DESNZ factor year you've used for each reporting period.

Q12. How will you minimise the environmental impact of delivering this specific contract?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe the specific measures you will take to minimise the environmental impact of the activities required under this contract. Where possible, quantify the expected environmental benefit."

What the buyer is actually checking

This question is different from the others because it's contract-specific. Buyers want to see that you've thought about the particular activities, travel, materials, and sub-contractors involved in this piece of work — not just recycled your standard environmental policy. Generic answers that could apply to any contract score poorly.

A strong answer identifies the main sources of environmental impact for this contract specifically (e.g., site visits requiring travel, printing, equipment procurement, waste from physical deliverables), proposes specific mitigation measures for each, and where possible quantifies the expected benefit. Committing to contract-specific environmental KPIs that you'll report on during delivery is the highest-scoring approach.

Worked example answer

"We have assessed the main sources of environmental impact specific to this contract and propose the following mitigations:

Travel to client sites: We will default to rail for all visits within a 3.5-hour journey time, with driving only where no rail alternative is available. We estimate 12 site visits over the contract term. By rail rather than car, we reduce travel emissions by approximately 1.1 tCO2e over the contract period. We will car-share for any journeys requiring multiple staff. No domestic flights will be taken for this contract.

Remote delivery: We propose conducting monthly progress reviews and all ad hoc consultations via video call. Only quarterly strategic reviews will require in-person attendance, reducing travel by an estimated 60% against an all-in-person baseline.

Documentation and reporting: All deliverables will be provided digitally. No printed reports will be produced unless explicitly requested by the buyer. Where printing is required, we will use recycled-content paper and double-sided printing.

Sub-contractors: Any sub-contractors engaged on this contract will be required to confirm compliance with our Environmental Policy as a condition of engagement.

We will report our contract-specific travel emissions at each quarterly review meeting and provide a final environmental impact summary at contract close."

Common mistakes

  • Submitting a generic environmental policy statement that makes no reference to the specific contract activities.
  • Not identifying the main impact sources for this particular contract. A consultancy delivering mostly remote work has different impacts than a facilities management supplier.
  • No quantification. Even rough estimates of tCO2e saved or miles avoided demonstrate that you've done the analysis.
  • Failing to mention sub-contractors. If the contract involves third parties, buyers want to know your environmental requirements extend to them.
  • Not committing to any monitoring or reporting during delivery. Promising measures and not measuring them undermines credibility.

Q13. What methodology do you use to calculate your emissions, and who verifies your data?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Please describe the methodology used to calculate your greenhouse gas emissions. State whether your data has been independently verified or assured and, if so, by whom and to what standard."

What the buyer is actually checking

Methodology and verification are the credibility foundations of everything else in your submission. A buyer who receives a claim of 42.7 tCO2e can't assess its reliability without knowing: which emission factors were used, which calculation standard was followed, what boundary was applied, and whether anyone independent has checked the numbers.

Independent third-party verification (to ISAE 3000 or ISO 14064-3) is the gold standard and commands the highest marks. Internal review by a competent person is the next tier. Unverified self-calculation is the minimum. Most SMEs operate at the middle tier, and that is accepted — provided the methodology is sound and documented. Buyers are particularly alert to the conversion factor question: using outdated DESNZ factors or mixing years' factors within a single inventory suggests insufficient rigour.

Worked example answer

"Our emissions inventory is calculated in accordance with the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (revised edition). We apply an operational control boundary, covering all emissions from sites and activities over which we have operational control.

Conversion factors are sourced exclusively from the UK Government's annual DESNZ greenhouse gas conversion factors, using the factors published for the relevant reporting year in each case. We do not mix factors from different publication years within a single inventory. For activity data where metered readings are unavailable, we use DEFRA's spend-based emission factors or standard benchmarks published by CIBSE, applied consistently year on year.

Our emissions data is calculated using CarbonVerified.uk, which applies DESNZ factors automatically for the correct reporting year. The resulting inventory is reviewed and approved by our Director before publication. We have not yet commissioned independent third-party verification to ISAE 3000 or ISO 14064-3. We have identified this as a planned step for FY 2027/28 and are in preliminary discussions with a UKAS-accredited verification body. Our methodology document is available on request and our full emissions data is published in our Carbon Reduction Plan at carbonverified.uk/crp."

Common mistakes

  • Not specifying which conversion factor source was used. "We used standard factors" is not sufficient.
  • Using outdated conversion factors. DESNZ updates these every year; using 2020 factors in a 2026 report suggests the inventory hasn't been refreshed.
  • Claiming independent verification when the reviewer is internal. "Our Finance Director checked the figures" is an internal review, not third-party assurance.
  • Not stating the organisational boundary. Without knowing whether the inventory covers one site or ten, evaluators cannot interpret the figures.
  • Failing to describe how estimated data (for Scope 3 categories without direct data) was derived.

Q14. How does your organisation contribute to the UK's Net Zero 2050 target?

How it typically appears in tenders

"Describe how your organisation's sustainability strategy and actions contribute to the UK's legally binding target of achieving Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Include any commitments to public climate frameworks, sector-level initiatives, or wider system change activities beyond your own operational footprint."

What the buyer is actually checking

This is the broadest question in the set and often appears as a closing question in sustainability evaluation sections. Buyers are assessing whether you see your role in the transition as narrowly operational (just reducing your own emissions) or as a genuine participant in the wider UK decarbonisation effort. It rewards ambition — but ambition backed by concrete commitments, not rhetoric.

Strong answers connect the organisation's own reduction trajectory to the national target, name specific public commitments made (SME Climate Pledge, Race to Zero, sector-level initiatives), and describe activities beyond the direct footprint: influencing suppliers, educating clients, or contributing to a sector's decarbonisation. This is also a good place to reference any public advocacy or knowledge-sharing activities. The weakest answers restate what has already been said in the earlier questions without adding any wider-system perspective.

Worked example answer

"Our contribution to the UK's Net Zero 2050 target operates on three levels: our own operations, our supply chain influence, and the clients we work with.

Within our own operations, we are committed to an absolute 50% Scope 1 and 2 reduction by 2030 and Net Zero across all scopes by 2050, consistent with the 1.5°C pathway. We have made a public commitment through the SME Climate Hub, signing the Business Climate Pledge. We report our progress annually in a published Carbon Reduction Plan, making our trajectory publicly accountable rather than a private aspiration.

Within our supply chain, we apply environmental criteria to supplier selection in our highest-impact spend categories and require all sub-contractors to comply with our Environmental Policy. We believe that SMEs exercising collective purchasing influence on their supply chains is one of the under-utilised levers in the UK's Net Zero transition, and we intend to extend our supplier engagement programme as the business grows.

For the clients we serve, our work directly supports their own emissions measurement and Carbon Reduction Plan obligations under PPN 06/21. By making credible emissions data more accessible to SMEs, we contribute to the accuracy and transparency of the UK's aggregate reported emissions — which is a precondition for effective national climate policy. We publish free guidance on UK public sector sustainability requirements, contributing to sector knowledge on decarbonisation practice."

Common mistakes

  • Simply restating your own operational carbon reduction targets without adding any wider-system perspective. This question asks what you contribute beyond your own footprint.
  • Vague statements about supporting Net Zero without naming any specific public commitments, pledges, or initiatives.
  • Treating this as a filler question and copying your environmental policy verbatim. Evaluators notice recycled text.
  • Claiming involvement in public climate initiatives without being verifiably listed. The SME Climate Hub and Race to Zero maintain public registries; evaluators can check.
  • Ignoring the supply chain and client dimensions entirely. An organisation that only reduces its own footprint while ignoring its wider influence scores narrowly on this question.

Getting the data right

Strong tender answers start with accurate emissions data. If your numbers are wrong, or if you can't explain where they came from, no amount of good writing will save your score. The most common reason SMEs struggle with these questions isn't a lack of commitment to sustainability. It's that pulling together Scope 1, 2, and 3 data from energy bills, mileage logs, and supplier records is genuinely tedious.

That's the problem CarbonVerified was built to solve. It handles the calculation layer (using official DESNZ 2025 conversion factors) so you can focus on writing the narrative around your numbers.

Start free at carbonverified.uk.

Get Started Free

Sources

Confirm

Are you sure?

This action cannot be undone.

Alert

Input Required

View on Map

Loading Map...