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

1. Introduction

Background

Relevant public bodies in Scotland have duties under section 44 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contribute to the delivery of the Scottish National Adaptation Plan, and act in the most sustainable way. These duties are known as the Public Bodies Climate Change Duties (PBCCD) and are set out below:

• The first duty – public bodies, when exercising their functions, must act in the way ‘best calculated’ (see Q3) to contribute to the delivery of national emission reduction targets, i.e. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, known as climate change mitigation.
• The second duty – relevant public bodies, when exercising their functions, must act in the way best calculated to help deliver the Scottish National Adaptation Plan.
• The third duty – public bodies, in exercising their functions, must act in a way they consider the most sustainable.

The Scottish government has drafted an updated guidance document to support public bodies implementing the PBCCD. The revised guidance proposes to adopt a holistic approach that includes broader functions of public bodies and achieves wider linked benefits, including to health and wellbeing, biodiversity, and equality.

A public consultation on draft Statutory Guidance for public bodies: putting the climate change duties into practice ran between 24 February and 23 May 2025 to help ensure the updated guidance is informed by, and tailored to, the needs of public bodies. Across 15 open and 11 closed questions, the consultation covered:

• Climate change and equalities.
• Taking climate change into account in decision making.
• Views on compliance and implementation for each duty.
• Reporting of scope 3 emissions.
• Overall reflections.

The full list of consultation questions can be found in Appendix A. The analysis of responses to the consultation will be used by the Scottish Government to inform the final statutory guidance.

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, or of everyone interested in this topic.

Respondent profile

In total, 119 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 11 responses to the consultation; the remaining 108 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped by the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent. Appendix B contains a list of organisations that responded.

Table 1: Respondent profile

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise or made very detailed suggestions about how the guidance could be improved. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these in this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 11 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 119 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”). Given the focus of the guidance on public bodies, the tables also show the total response among all public bodies that answered, compared to non-public bodies.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged. Appendix C provides a glossary of terms used.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• In a few cases where a response received as an email or PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Only 11 responses were received from individuals. Given the potential for bias in this small sample, the analysis has generally avoided comparing the views of individuals with those of organisations. Quantitative data is presented for both respondent types, but comparisons should be treated cautiously.
• Qualitative comments do not always align with the results of the quantitative questions. For example, respondents often acknowledged the positives of the guidance but caveated their support or suggested areas for improvement.
• The call for views on the draft guidance produced many qualitative comments that were highly detailed and specific. Examples of these comments are given in this report to highlight or illustrate a particular issue. However, providing full details of every suggestion in this report is not practical.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 119 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide helpful examples, insights and contextual information.
• A small number of respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the qualitative themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 30 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 20 and 29 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 10 and 19 respondents, another theme.
• A few, between three and nine respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.

This framework is used solely to present the prevalence of themes within consultation responses. Given the subjective nature of attributing importance and the self-selection of consultation respondents, this does not necessarily represent the importance of a theme.