Public bodies climate change duties - draft statutory guidance: consultation analysis - final report

Executive Summary

A public consultation ran between 24 February and 23 May 2025 to gather stakeholder feedback on draft statutory guidance for public bodies on putting the climate change duties into practice. The consultation had 15 open questions, which asked for views on the updated draft statutory guidance. The guidance addressed climate change and equalities, taking climate change into account in decision-making, views on compliance and implementation of each of the three duties, reporting of scope 3 emissions and overall reflections. This report presents a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 119 consultation responses from 11 individuals and 108 organisations.

Overarching themes

Respondents frequently raised several overarching themes that were repeated across questions. These included positive views on the guidance, comments on its length, clarity, and complexity, areas to strengthen, the need for practical support, funding and capacity concerns, proportionality, alignment with relevant policies, the need for strong leadership, views on decision-making, and consideration of the broader policy landscape.

While the guidance was viewed as comprehensive, detailed and useful by many respondents, it was also considered overly complex and long by many others. Suggestions for improvement included ways to make the guidance easier to follow, such as by moving supplementary information to Annexes, clarifying requirements, using plain English and ensuring consistency in language. In addition, the need to provide practical resources or address funding and capacity concerns was raised. Further resources, toolkits and step-by-step approaches were encouraged.

Overall, it was felt that the guidance was proportionate and allowed for flexible use among different public bodies. The importance of proportionality was frequently emphasised, though views varied by question. Concerns were raised over the feasibility of meeting the climate duties; for large public bodies, this related to the scale of the task, while for smaller bodies, their limited capacity and capability were described. Calls were made for sectoral guidance for different public bodies, and for funding to support implementation.

The importance of aligning the guidance with other policies, reporting requirements and the wider context was repeatedly raised by respondents. This included considering policies relevant to communities, equalities, environment and land use. Respondents’ views here often related to, or were informed by, their own area of work.

The need for strong leadership and effective decision-making was repeatedly emphasised across questions. These general views sought further guidance to support practical decision-making, such as providing a framework or ensuring equalities are mainstreamed in decision-making.

Climate change and equalities

A majority of respondents, particularly non-public bodies, felt the guidance could be strengthened in relation to impacts for those with protected characteristics (62%) and for those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage (57%). However, positive feedback was given on the inclusion of these topics in the guidance, with the text commended as clear and comprehensive.

The need to make the guidance more practical was highlighted, for instance, by including more case studies or signposting to relevant data sets. Suggestions for how the guidance could be strengthened included providing further detail on impacts for disabled people, addressing geographic issues such as place-based inequalities, or linking climate actions to specific protected characteristics.

Climate change in decision-making

A majority felt the guidance was partially clear on how public bodies can ‘best calculate’ the climate impact of action they take (57%), and how they can take future climate scenarios into account (63%). In both these aspects, public bodies were more likely than non-public bodies to believe the guidance was clear compared to non-public bodies. The importance of addressing decision-making in the guidance was highlighted, as was the holistic approach the guidance has adopted.

Calls were made for more clarity on how to ‘best calculate’ climate impacts, particularly around expectations for public bodies. Recommendations were given for public bodies to use a standard methodology. Challenges in this area were also highlighted, such as how to calculate long-term climate impacts and how to adapt when national government targets change. Practical support or clarity was requested on how to take future climate scenarios into account, such as how to consider multiple time frames and different scenarios or provide links to external resources and methods.

The first duty – reducing emissions

Views were mixed on the draft guidance on meeting the first duty. Many respondents left positive views on this part of the guidance, such as it was comprehensive, flexible, clear and would help contribute towards net zero. Conversely, many others felt further clarity and detail were needed, such as how to report certain emissions or measure emissions effectively by including more worked examples and other practical resources. Some raised issues around offsetting carbon emissions, notably highlighting the limited availability carbon credits, with suggestions given for how to address this.

Over two thirds (69%) of respondents felt the Carbon Management Plan template was suitable for use, though support varied considerably by type of public body. Many commented favourably on the template, that it was proportionate, suited to smaller public bodies, and aligned to existing reporting requirements. Suggestions were given for how to enhance the usability of the template, including areas to strengthen, additions or by providing further detail. These included considering how to measure transport emissions from service users, ensuring alignment with the rest of the guidance and reviewing the suitability of the template for certain bodies, such as Integration Joint Boards (IJBs).

Just under half of respondents (48%) felt the Climate Change Plan template for local authorities was suited for use, though local authorities were more likely to agree (81%) than other types of public bodies. High levels of ‘don’t know’ among those answering (36%) likely reflected that the question was irrelevant to those respondents. As above, positive views were received and alignment to existing plans, strategies and approaches was noted. Specific suggestions for improvement included making the plan in two parts for corporate and area-wide emissions, or reflecting collaborations or partnerships in the template. Concerns were also raised, such as the potential duplication of reporting or the need for funding.

The second duty – adaptation

The proposed approach for public bodies to identify objectives from the Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP), and report against these, was widely supported (88%). Among public bodies, local authorities were most likely to agree with the approach, with IJBs least likely to. Many respondents welcomed the approach and felt it would help embed adaptation planning in public bodies. Some suggested areas to strengthen, while some others called for more simplicity, clarity or practical support. For instance, respondents recommended emphasising this is the approach to take, or streamlined compliance routes for smaller public bodies.

It was highlighted that all SNAP3 objectives could be relevant for public bodies, especially local authorities, and more guidance was needed to help determine which objectives to include. Some recommended that a consistent approach be adopted across public bodies, which could help a coordinated national approach to addressing climate risks. It was also suggested that adaptation reporting could occur over a longer time cycle to align with biodiversity reporting.

Other views on complying with the second duty included the need for the guidance to consider opportunities as well as risks, and the need to encourage collaboration and partnerships. Some gave positive views on the guidance and felt it provided a solid framework that could achieve buy-in across public bodies. A wide range of suggested additions were made by some, while some others felt this part of the guidance was overly detailed and long. Some felt that more tools, design guidance and climate data sets to support climate adaptation planning were needed.

The third duty – acting in the most sustainable way

Just under half of respondents (48%) felt the draft statutory guidance was partially clear on how public bodies should implement the third duty, while three in ten (30%) felt it was clear. The most prevalent themes were positive views of the chapter on implementing the third duty and the need for more practical tools or support. Other prevalent themes included the need for more clarity, alignment with other goals or policies, the need to strengthen or add aspects of the guidance, and the need for more resources.

Many noted that this part of the draft guidance was clear and helpful, wide-ranging and detailed. However, many others highlighted the need for more practical support, mainly because it was perceived to lack specific advice or actions for public bodies in different sectors. Several called for clarification of expectations of public bodies and other aspects, such as how the duty would be assessed.

Reporting of scope 3 emissions

Over three quarters of respondents (78%) agreed with the proposed baseline reporting of the scope 3 emission categories as outlined in the draft guidance, while 14% disagreed. The most prevalent themes in comments were perceived implementation challenges and positive views of the proposed approach. Other themes included the need to consider different public bodies and to strengthen or add to the guidance.

Reporting of scope 3 emissions was viewed as a challenging, resource-intensive area by many respondents. While there was some support for the suggested categories, generally respondents wished to exclude those relating to staff business travel and staff commuting and homeworking, mainly due to perceived problems collecting this data. Other challenges included data issues, the need for a consistent methodology, capacity issues and supply chain or procurement issues. Alternatively, several respondents supported the inclusion of the proposed categories and gave reasons for doing so, such as that these categories would enable more focused and meaningful action. Recommendations were made for improving the guidance, such as to strengthen reporting requirements, clarifying which public bodies had to report against all scope 3 emissions categories or ways to support new reporting requirements.

Of those answering which scope 3 emission categories should be included in the baseline reporting, respondents were most likely to indicate purchased goods, works and services (87%), and capital assets, e.g. construction (72%). Next most selected were upstream transportation and distribution (43%) and investments (43%). The categories of purchased goods, works and services and investments and finance were most likely to elicit further comments from respondents. Some respondents called for no additional categories, and a few felt all suggested categories should be included or welcomed further additions.

Overall reflections

Almost three quarters (73%) of respondents felt the guidance fulfilled its stated purpose, while 15% did not and 12% were unsure. Greater support was evident among public bodies compared to non-public bodies (78% and 60% respectively). Views often reflected those noted in the overarching themes, for instance, with positive opinions expressed or suggestions given for how to improve the guidance further.

Other themes raised by respondents included the need to encourage compliance by public bodies, such as strengthening requirements or regulations, further emphasis on supporting joint working, strengthening reporting arrangements, and addressing training and capacity building in public bodies.

Conclusion

Overall, respondents supported the draft statutory guidance for public bodies, with a majority of the opinion that it is fit for purpose. Views were mixed on the level of detail to include, with many wide-ranging suggestions given for how the draft guidance could be further developed. Views were provided on the content and structure of the guidance, as well as on the duties themselves and how public bodies can comply with them. Overall, the key message is that while there are broadly positive views of the guidance, respondents identified areas where it could benefit from greater clarity and consideration of the different characteristics and challenges of public bodies in Scotland.