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

7. The third duty – acting in the most sustainable way

Chapter 7 of the guidance, ‘Implementing the third duty: acting in the most sustainable way’, lays out the overarching principles and actions which all public bodies would be expected to undertake, proportionate to their size and nature, to implement the third duty. Key to this is to mainstream sustainable development into the functioning of Scottish public bodies, i.e. work must be carried out in a way that supports sustainable development.

The guidance notes that, due to the individual nature of each public body and its decisions, a prescriptive approach to this duty is not possible. Public bodies are required to consider their actions carefully and apply an awareness of wider impacts to their approach.

Q10. Having considered the content of the chapter, is it clear how public bodies should implement the third duty, to act in the most sustainable way?

Q11. Do you have any other comments about this chapter?

The most prevalent view among those answering Q10 was that the guidance was partially clear on how public bodies should implement the third duty (48%). A further three in ten (30%) believed it was clear, 17% not clear, and 4% were unsure. Support (full and partial combined) from public bodies ranged from 60% among NHS bodies to 100% of RTPs and education bodies.

Three quarters of all respondents left an open comment to explain their answer to Q10. 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 (see Chapter 2).

Over half of all respondents commented at Q11. The main themes in order of prevalence were: the need for more practical support, to strengthen or add certain aspects to the chapter, positive views and suggestions for simplification.

Due to the considerable overlap of themes evident in comments at Q10 and Q11, these have been combined into the analysis below.

Positive views

Many respondents at Q10 and several at Q11 expressed positive views of this chapter of the guidance. It was felt to be clear and helpful, wide-ranging and detailed. The guidance’s holistic approach and the setting out of expectations, principles and the conceptual framework were welcomed. Relevant information was felt to have been included, along with a comprehensive background and the range of considerations public bodies should take when implementing the duty. For instance, topics such as community wealth building, the wellbeing economy, planetary boundaries, international links in education, and the interaction between duties were specifically welcomed.

Areas highlighted as particularly clear included the stage-by-stage procedure, the concept of sustainable development and how it applies to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring procurement activities align with the Sustainable Procurement Duty, and that impact assessments align with sustainable development.

A few at Q10 and a few at Q11 noted the importance of this chapter, such as its ability to contribute to a sustainable society, raise the profile of the issues, or transform thinking.

Need for practical support

The need for more practical support to enable public bodies to implement the third duty was highlighted by many respondents in Q10 and several in Q11. Often, this was because the guidance was felt to lack specific advice or actions for public bodies (see below). More tools to assist with integrating sustainability into organisational practices were requested, such as around asset management, service delivery and procurement choices.

Respondents noted they would value more examples of good practice and case studies about how the duty is being implemented. It was suggested that these should consider the different needs of public bodies (see Chapter 2), for instance, how to embed sustainability into day-to-day operations, what should be prioritised, and how. For education bodies, for instance, this could include guidance on how to embed sustainability in curricular development or to devise operational sustainability measures specific to campus settings.

Singular suggestions included the need for support to manage timescales, using a maturity checklist for Sustainable Framework Assessment levels, highlighting the Mossgeil Milk case study in East Ayrshire, and encouraging the use of the UK Frameworks referred to as ‘principles’ in the guidance as a helpful starting point for public bodies.

“Given that economic sustainability is one of the three pillars of sustainable development, we believe it is essential that any guidance on internationalisation balances environmental considerations with the financial realities facing the sector. We would encourage the inclusion of more detailed, practical guidance on how institutions can navigate these complex trade-offs in a way that supports long-term viability while progressing toward net zero goals.” - Royal Conservatoire of Scotland

Need for simplification or further clarity

Several respondents at Q10 and some at Q11 raised the need for simplification. Several others, including a few at Q11, felt further clarity was required. There were calls for the guidance to be clearer about expectations and how to implement the duties.

Contrasting comments were made on Chapter 7 of the guidance, for instance, that it is either too broad or vague, or conversely, too detailed and contains a lot of technical, ‘high-level’ or theoretical information. Views included: that it was not written in the same way as the other two duties, so it felt repetitive and confusing when comparing them; that links between wellbeing, sustainable economy and sustainability are not made; and that certain phrases are open to interpretation.

Areas for further clarification identified by respondents included:

• Clearly defining ‘the most sustainable way’.
• To discuss causes of unsustainability further, including suggested actions that can be taken to reduce current threats to sustainable development.
• How the duty will be assessed.
• How local authorities can show that ‘activities remain within planetary boundaries’.
• To define ‘social equity’, ‘basic human needs’, ‘wellbeing’ and ‘anchor organisations’, including the latter’s role in influencing local areas to meet the duties.
• How public bodies are expected to progress along the Sustainable Framework Assessment levels.

“We infer that the sustainability duty extends to (1) the discharge of duties/core service outcomes, and (2) to the way we provide those services would need to align with the principles of sustainable development – is this correct? Being clear on this point would help public bodies focus on their activities, how they deliver them, and where they can act to be more sustainable.” – Scottish Water

“Our experience in East Lothian is that the Council tends to prioritise economic development over other considerations. Clarity throughout the guidance that ‘other duties, which confer other functions on public bodies, should be carried out in ways which support mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development’ would be very beneficial.” - East Lothian Climate Hub (Policy Circle)

Strengthen or add to the guidance

Some respondents at both Q10 and Q11 highlighted areas to strengthen or emphasise in this chapter of the guidance. Areas where it was felt more emphasis was needed included:

• Tracking sustainability performance.
• Ensuring consistent participation and accountability from stakeholders, and more emphasis on the importance of partnerships and collaboration.
• Being consistent in the use of sustainable development
• Ways to adopt a holistic, whole-systems approach.
• Expanding references to attitudes (and linking it to other sections), community wealth building and nature, and for the Climate Justice principle to have more prominence.
• Expectations on how public bodies should define and require sustainability in commissioned social care.
• More on how land-owning public bodies can use their land to reduce emissions and to explicitly account for embodied carbon or circular economy considerations in a way that would allow embedding specifications into contract management key performance indicators.
• To apply the term ‘Major Players’ in a more nuanced way.

Calls for the inclusion of additional features to support the implementation of the third duty were made by some respondents. Most prevalent at Q10 were calls for firmer requirements to protect relevant activity in the face of resource constraints. Suggestions on this included: to consider mandating a sustainability test for major decisions/funding approvals; giving public bodies the ability to differentiate under procurement rules in the area of carbon emissions and sustainability; and setting reporting requirements about ‘how’ as well as ‘what’ and ‘when’, to drive progress.

Other suggested additions included:

• Setting out the duty for public bodies under Best Value.
• Reflecting rural and regional delivery models.
• The need to embed sustainability in research and innovation.
• Adding a section on sustainability and resilient communities, and a supplement on the wellbeing economy.
• The need for capacity building for sustainability.

Concerns with the approach

A few respondents at Q10 and a few at Q11 raised concerns with this chapter of the guidance. Concerns mostly focused on the lack of clear direction for different public bodies, which could have differing approaches, with the potential that this could result in ambiguity and inconsistency. Specific views included that:

• The guidance made assumptions about organisational maturity levels, available resources, and the extent to which sustainability was embedded in organisational cultures.
• Long-term sustainability is dependent on private sector involvement and cross-sector partnerships.
• There is insufficient incentive to change, especially if current arrangements are profitable.
• There are challenges if organisations are required to carbon cost every project.
• Data related issues, such as that data could be misinterpreted or that wellbeing data was problematic, as it was based on subjective evaluation and varied by culture.
• There is a risk of each duty being seen in isolation which could lead to unintended consequences, such as maladaptation or inequality.