Climate change duties: statutory guidance for public bodies

3. Climate change and equality

The impacts of the decisions that public bodies make in relation to climate change and sustainability could potentially affect everyone in Scotland, directly or indirectly. Impact assessments are a structured way to consider the impact of policies and plans, and in certain circumstances are a legal requirement (see Annex B). It is important that bodies integrate equality considerations and mainstreaming into their climate action and, where relevant, approach equality impact assessment and Fairer Scotland Duty assessment as an integral part of climate policy and project development.

Climate change and inequality are closely linked. Globally, those least responsible for emissions often face the earliest and most severe climate impacts.^[1] In Scotland, too, impacts will not be felt equally. People and communities are differently exposed to hazards such as heat, flooding, drought, wildfires and coastal erosion depending on where they live, work or play. Factors such as age, disability or existing health conditions increase susceptibility, while poverty and limited resources can reduce the ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from events. Existing inequalities amplify climate-related risks; and it is likely that our changing climate will deepen existing inequalities within society.

Public sector bodies should take a leadership role in reducing the negative impacts of climate change on the social, physical and economic environment and any related impact on inequalities. They should work to actively improve health, equity and environmental sustainability as they take action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are aspects of identity that can make individuals more vulnerable to disadvantage or discrimination. People often have more than one particular protected characteristic, creating overlapping and compounding forms of disadvantage, known as intersectionality.^[2]

As best practice, intersectionality should be considered throughout decision making and service delivery to help understand the complexity of different individuals’ and communities’ lived experience of climate hazards, and how they might access, understand and act on information, as well as how they can benefit from adaptation and mitigation actions.

Illustrative example

In Scotland, disabled people experience persistent employment and pay gaps, and poverty rates are higher in households in which someone is disabled compared to households were no-one is disabled. An older disabled person living alone in poor quality, high density housing in an urban area may be at greater risk during a heatwave because of the interaction between disability, age, low income, poor quality housing, social isolation and the built environment.

Equalities and climate-related data

Collecting data to support decisions is an integral part of policy development. Formal sources of evidence include population and environmental data, statistics, consultations and evaluations, literature reviews and participant knowledge.

Combining population data from, for example, the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and Equality Evidence Finder with environmental datasets such as Dynamic Coast, SEPA flood risk maps, and Met Office climate projections can reveal where social and economic inequalities and environmental risks intersect. This supports targeted adaptation planning, helps ensure disadvantaged groups are not overlooked and can help avoid unintended consequences.

Rural and island areas in Scotland may be particularly vulnerable to storms, flooding and coastal erosion, which can disrupt daily life, infrastructure and local economies. Sparse populations, limited public transport, fuel costs and high rates of fuel and transport poverty can heighten vulnerability. In some areas, unreliable digital connectivity and limited access to services may further restrict adaptation, recovery, and opportunities such as remote work or education. Climate-related decision making should therefore take an intersectional approach and look beyond protected characteristics to include wider socio-economic considerations such as those living in low income areas, in island communities and in remote rural areas.

Illustrative example

Analysis of an island community in the Outer Hebrides could combine population data on age with data on levels of income, employment and fuel poverty, SEPA flood maps indicating significant exposure to coastal flooding, and erosion risks highlighted by Dynamic Coast data. When set against Met Office climate projections of increased storm frequency and intensity, this could highlight how households with limited financial and social resources and higher energy costs may be disproportionately affected by climate impacts. Coupled with challenges such as unreliable digital connectivity and reliance on infrequent transport links, the evidence shows how socio-economic vulnerabilities and environmental risks overlap, helping policymakers prioritise targeted support for adaptation and resilience in such areas.

3.1 Climate, health and equalities

How climate impacts affect health

Climate change, and the measures we take to achieve net zero and adapt to its impacts, present risks to, and opportunities for, human health. Many of the worst anticipated health effects of climate change can be prevented if urgent action is taken to reach net zero and adapt to our changing climate. Aligning health goals with climate action can deliver near term population health and equity co-benefits. The just transition principles provide a framework to support climate mitigation and adaptation actions maximise opportunities for health, equity and environmental sustainability.

Unequal distribution of climate-related health and social risks

The health impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed. Vulnerability depends on:

• exposure – housing quality and the local environment can accentuate or offset climate impacts
• adaptive capacity – income, knowledge, mobility, community networks and insurance influence how well individuals and communities can prepare for, respond to and recover from climate impacts
• sensitivity – age and health status.

Those facing social and economic disadvantage are often more exposed and less able to adapt. Poor quality housing, lack of green space, limited financial resources, language barriers and social isolation can all increase vulnerability.

Illustrative example

A housing development starts to flood more regularly and more severely. The rental and sale values of the properties drop, and the more affluent residents move away. The development becomes home to those on low incomes with less choice in where they can afford to live, including elderly residents and those reliant on welfare payments. These residents are less likely to be able to afford the high home insurance premiums demanded due to the high flood risk, and as a result most are uninsured. The homes may also now be owned by private landlords less inclined or less able to spend money on adapting the properties against flooding.

When the homes do flood again, causing damage to the properties and loss of personal belongings, residents are unable to afford to make good or replace personal items, or need to forgo or reduce expenditure on other essentials, such as heating and nutritious food, to replace belongings. They lack the financial resource or social network to support them to find temporary accommodation or access support and are more likely to require additional support from local government, charities and the social security system. The flooding itself, and the financial and social implications, cause anxiety and emotional upset, impacting on mental health and wellbeing. For those of working age, this may have a negative impact on their ability to work, or to work full time. They may have the kind of employment that is difficult to sustain under such circumstances.

Public bodies should also consider vulnerable individuals and populations in institutional or long-term care settings, including care homes, hospitals and secure accommodation, as well as children and young people in education or with additional support needs. These groups may be especially vulnerable due to their reliance on institutional environments. Bodies should explicitly consider how climate change policies and practices affect these groups.

Climate policy response and widening inequalities

Climate policies may not benefit everyone equally.^[3] For instance, suspending travel services during severe weather reduces risk but disproportionately affects low-income workers.^[4] Similarly, high costs of electric vehicles or heat pumps can limit access to low carbon technologies.

Policies and plans may create unintended negative health and social impacts. For example, poorly designed energy efficiency measures may worsen indoor air quality. Identifying and addressing these unintended impacts early is essential to prevent widening inequalities and address potential harms.

Climate justice

Those facing disadvantage often have less power to influence decisions that affect them. Inequalities in power, influence and decision making are underlying drivers of both health inequalities and the unjust distribution of climate impacts. Empowering communities in local planning, coastal management and housing decisions, supporting their ability to adapt, will help achieve a fair and just transition.

Meaningful engagement ensures policies reflect lived experience and reduces inequalities. Building trust, investing in accessible engagement methods, and supporting community capacity can shift power imbalances and strengthen resilience.

Public bodies should also consider intergenerational equity: children, young people and future generations will face disproportionate climate impacts. Equality Impact Assessments should assess not just immediate impacts but also long term outcomes to ensure today’s actions do not create or exacerbate future inequalities.

3.2 Public Sector Equality Duty

Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the 2010 Act’) places a Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) on relevant public authorities and those who exercise public functions. They must, in exercising their functions, have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct which is prohibited by or under the 2010 Act
• advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it
• foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

These are known as the three needs of the PSED, or the general duty. The 2010 Act also created powers for devolved governments to develop specific duties, to support the performance of the general duty.

Although the 2010 Act is largely reserved to the UK Parliament, Scottish Ministers have the power to make statutory regulations to enable better performance of the PSED in Scotland. Scottish Ministers have used this power to make the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, known as the Scottish Specific Duties (SSDs).

Regulation 5 of the SSDs places a duty on listed authorities in Scotland to assess and review new or revised policies and practices to the extent necessary to fulfil the PSED. The results of such Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) for new or revised policies and practices require to be published within a reasonable period .

EQIAs should improve decision making by identifying potential positive, negative and neutral effects, ensuring proposals are robust and fair. Importantly, they also allow positive opportunities to reduce inequalities and improve relationships to be identified and enhanced.

3.3 Fairer Scotland Duty

Under Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 certain bodies, including local authorities, Health Boards, integration joint boards and the enterprise agencies, are also subject to the public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequality. In Scotland, this duty was introduced in 2018 as the Fairer Scotland Duty (FSD). The FSD requires named public bodies to actively consider (‘pay due regard’ to) how to reduce inequalities of outcome caused by socio-economic disadvantage in any strategic decision that they make. It applies to strategic decisions such as corporate plans, budgets, procurement, estate management and workforce planning.^[5] The statutory guidance for public bodies on FSD recommends that bodies publish a written assessment to demonstrate that due regard has been paid.

Aligning the FSD with the climate change duties creates opportunities to address both climate-related and socio-economic inequalities. Strategic decisions on housing, transport and energy affect fuel and transport poverty and community resilience, while investment in green jobs, skills and fair work promotes inclusive growth and tackles structural disadvantage. Planning for access to green space, nature-based solutions, and sustainable food systems can improve both climate adaptation and health outcomes, while also reducing inequalities in access to green space and associated wellbeing outcomes.

Further guidance:

• statutory guidance on the FSD published by the Scottish Government
• Annex B for further information on FSDAs and EQIAs.

Illustrative example

A city council may take a decision that could reduce air pollution in areas of the city where they know there is a higher concentration of both pollution and socio-economic inequality according to the SIMD, such as by increasing pedestrian only zones or restricting heavy vehicle traffic. This is likely, in time, to lessen inequalities in health outcomes between these areas and those that are less deprived. Conversely, if they choose to make it easier for heavy industrial traffic to drive from one side of the city to the other, without considering whether the routes they are trying to open up to heavier traffic run predominantly through areas of higher socio-economic deprivation, this will likely worsen inequalities of outcome from socio-economic inequality. The same thinking can be applied to where a local authority may choose to invest money or focus in terms of promoting or increasing access to green spaces, improving parks, and so on, given the inequality that exists in access to blue or green spaces.

3.4 Impact assessments

As public bodies develop, update and implement climate change policies, strategies and plans, it is likely most will be required to undertake one or more impact assessments. These are designed to test policies, plans and projects against certain criteria, to gain a deeper understanding of likely impacts; allow negative impacts to be mitigated against, minimised or removed; to maximise opportunities for positive outcomes; and, critically, to feed into the development of the policy or plan.

In all cases, it is important that public bodies:

• approach the assessment with an open mind and with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the issues
• start the process early, so that the results can feed into the development of the policy or plan and influence decisions, or provide rationale to explain otherwise
• gather relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence, and engage with appropriate individuals, groups, communities and organisations as part of the consultation process
• ensure that the results feed into the proposal and help bring about demonstrable change
• make a plan to monitor the success of any mitigating or enhancing actions set out in the assessment
• take an approach proportionate to the size of body and the size or scope of the proposal.

Some impact assessments are required on a statutory basis, and it is the responsibility of public bodies themselves to ensure they are compliant. Those assessments which are not required on a mandatory basis, can still be carried out as part of good practice. Where assessments are not applicable, the rationale for this should be documented.

Annex B provides details of the most commonly required impact assessments, further guidance and resources.

Illustrative worked example - EQIA and FSDA

This illustrative example is hypothetical. It is intended to illustrate how undertaking an EQIA and a FSDA for the development of a policy or practice related to climate action can ensure the achievement of wider linked benefits both for groups with protected characteristics and for groups experiencing socio-economic inequalities.

This example is focused on the development of a sustainable travel plan.

A public body decides to develop a corporate sustainable travel plan, primarily to help reduce carbon emissions associated with staff commuting and business travel. The body is located in a large office building in an edge-of-city business park, adjacent to a housing estate which is in an area of higher deprivation. The body uses SIMD and other population data to determine that the residents in the housing estate are generally on low incomes, and more likely to be elderly, in poor health or belong to a minority ethnic group.

Through developing its sustainable travel plan, the public body aims to reduce the number of staff driving to work. This could have positive impacts on local air quality, in turn benefitting the health of local residents. It may also help reduce traffic congestion at peak times. Improved cycling infrastructure and public transport provision may make the business park a more attractive proposition and encourage other businesses to lease space or develop there, increasing local employment opportunities and stimulating other local development.

As legally required, the public body undertakes an equality impact assessment as well as a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment as part of the process of developing its sustainable travel plan. The EQIA considers the three needs of the PSED while the FSDA considers impacts on inequality for groups experiencing socio-economic disadvantage. Undertaking the EQIA highlights areas where the body can take action with regard to the three needs of the PSED; undertaking the FSDA does so in relation to the Fairer Scotland Duty.

The EQIA

(a) Eliminating discrimination

The body wants to encourage all staff to cycle to work more, but their last travel survey indicated that very few female staff cycle to work. The body investigates these findings by engaging with their staff as part of the EQIA process, and finds that many female staff are put off by the route into the business park which is via a busy road and exposed, leaving them feeling vulnerable to potential attack or anti-social behaviour. They also feel that the current cycle parking, which is at the far edge of the car park, is isolated and poorly lit adding to feelings of insecurity.

The body wants to ensure that all staff feel safe and able to cycle if they wish. They improve the lighting to the staff car park and move the cycle parking closer to the main entrance to the building to ensure line of sight to reception, enhancing perceptions of safety.

Another barrier identified in information gathered for the EQIA was lack of adequate facilities for cyclists and other active travellers. While the office does have showers, three of these are located in the men’s changing area, with only one in the female changing area. Needing to queue for a shower upon arrival has put a number of the female staff off using active travel to commute. The public body reconfigures the washroom facilities, ensuring that equal provision is provided. They also increase the number and size of storage lockers available in each changing area so that active travellers have space to keep their kit.

With a focus on encouraging staff to use active travel for their commute, the public body engages with their local authority to lobby for improved cycling infrastructure in the area and the development of off-road cycleways. Increasing cycling rates would have direct health benefits for those staff. As the cycleways would be open to all, this could result in wider health and wellbeing benefits for local residents too. Cycling is usually an affordable means of transport and would improve accessibility for residents. The creation of pathways with associated trees and other planting could improve the quality of local greenspace, help enhance biodiversity and help provide shade and cooler areas on hot days and in heatwaves.

(b) Advancing equality of opportunity

The body sets up a bicycle user group to encourage and facilitate cyclists to support one another, and as a forum to discuss cycling related issues. Representatives from the group become key points of contact for related areas of the business including facilities management and HR, ensuring that cyclists and would-be cyclists have a stronger voice and are involved in relevant decision making.

The public body also prioritises engagement with the local authority to lobby for the development of off-road cycling and walking infrastructure to establish an alternative route avoiding the busy road, to create a safe route for active travel for all.

The public body wants to increase the proportion of staff using public transport. The body engages with the local bus company to improve bus service provision to the business park. It also reviews its working arrangements, and allows for more flexible working hours to enable staff to adjust their start and finish times to meet specific bus services or to avoid peak times when journey times are longer. These improved arrangements help bus travel become a feasible option for many more members of staff, in particular benefitting women with caring responsibilities and younger members of staff, as identified through the staff travel survey.

(c) Fostering good relations

Through the travel survey and the bicycle user group, it is identified that lack of skills and the confidence to cycle on busy roads is a barrier to many employees, including those with disabilities, women, and others who are nervous about cycling. A cycling buddy scheme is set up, where more skilled and confident cyclists, including those with experience in adaptive cycling, lead a series of lunchtime rides and accompany less confident riders on part of their commute. This builds confidence and skills in the less able riders, increases understanding between the two groups of riders, and helps build positive social relationships. Over time, initially less confident cyclists, including those with disabilities, are enabled to lead rides and act as buddies; and the scheme is extended to members of the local community facing similar barriers. Additionally, the organisation reviews its salary sacrifice Cycle to Work scheme, to ensure that it includes provision of adaptive bicycles and necessary accommodations to ensure inclusivity for all participants.

The FSDA

In the FSDA process, the public body identified statistical evidence that low income groups were more reliant on public transport than higher income groups, were less likely to travel by private car, and that their active travel was more likely to involve walking than cycling. They consulted with groups experiencing poverty in the local community, and identified that an improved bus service would also benefit local residents through more regular provision of affordable and accessible public transport, widening access to employment opportunities. Affording, securing and insuring cycles were seen as a barrier to cycling for many in the area.

Local residents in the adjacent low income residential area benefit from more buses at peak times and services that run later into the evening. This improves access to services, and opens up additional employment opportunities such as shift work, which would previously not have been an option for many due to lack of affordable transport options.

Wider influence

The public body introduces an affordable cycle leasing scheme with a local supplier and engages with the local authority to lobby for improved local cycling infrastructure, including off-road shared-use pathways with good connections to public transport and secure lockup facilities. The local authority undertakes community consultation and engagement around the design of the pathways and associated green spaces. Different community groups, including marginalised groups, and users, including the public body, are engaged in the co-design exercise. This leads to improved understanding of the needs of different groups, a sense of community ownership, greater community cohesion, and a design that successfully meets wider needs.

New relationships between the public body and the local community are built during the consultation process. The bicycle user group expands and becomes more diverse, extending its lunchtime rides and buddying scheme to include local community members. A beginners’ running group is formed to make use of the new dual-use pathways. The body explores possibilities to set up a work experience and summer internship scheme with local youth groups. Staff surveys suggest that inequalities in feeling healthy, worrying about finances and job satisfaction have decreased between those on the lowest and the highest incomes, and between male and female employees.