Why Your Suppliers’ Carbon Reduction Plans Keep Failing Evaluation

Quick answer: Carbon Reduction Plans fail public sector evaluation most commonly for four reasons: missing or estimated Scope 3 emissions data, Net Zero commitments that have no milestones or actions behind them, out-of-date emissions figures that have not been refreshed within the last 12 months, and inconsistencies between the CRP and other parts of the bid. Each of these failures is avoidable. None of them reflects a supplier that cannot deliver. They reflect a supplier that did not have the right support to prepare.

If you sit on procurement evaluation panels regularly, you will have noticed something. Carbon Reduction Plans are now a standard submission requirement for most above-threshold procurements, yet the quality of what arrives in the tender portal varies enormously. Some are detailed, credible and clearly the product of genuine work. Many are not.

This is not primarily a problem of supplier dishonesty. Most suppliers want to get this right. The problem is that they do not know what right looks like from the evaluator’s perspective, and nobody has told them in plain terms what fails and why.
Having spent years on the other side of this process, I can tell you exactly what we see when we open a CRP submission that is going to score poorly. And I can tell you why it matters not just to suppliers, but to you as a buyer trying to run a fair, rigorous and defensible evaluation.

What a Carbon Reduction Plan is supposed to include under PPN 006
A Carbon Reduction Plan is a published document that sets out an organisation’s greenhouse gas emissions and explains how those emissions will be reduced over time. Under PPN 006 (which updated PPN 06/21 from 24th February 2025), it is a requirement for central government contracts above £5 million, and the NHS has required it of suppliers since April 2024.

To be compliant, a CRP must include baseline year emissions data across Scope 1, 2 and 3, a commitment to achieving Net Zero by 2050, specific reduction targets with dates, and the actions the organisation intends to take to get there. It must be signed off at board or director level and published publicly on the company’s website.

That is the standard. The gap between the standard and what many suppliers actually submit is significant.

Why Carbon Reduction Plans fail public sector evaluation: the four most common reasons

1. Missing or poorly evidenced Scope 3 data
The most common failure is emissions data that is either missing entirely or clearly estimated without any real methodology behind it. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from sources the organisation controls, such as fuel combustion and company vehicles. Scope 2 covers purchased electricity. Scope 3, which is often the largest category, covers everything else: business travel, employee commuting, purchased goods and waste.

Many smaller suppliers submit a CRP with Scope 1 and 2 data only, sometimes with a note explaining that Scope 3 is not yet available. This is understandable for very small organisations, but it is not compliant. Where Scope 3 data is genuinely difficult to obtain, the CRP should explain the methodology used, the data sources relied on and the steps being taken to improve measurement over time. A blank field or a single dismissive sentence will fail evaluation.

2. A commitment to Net Zero with no plan behind it
The second common failure is a Net Zero commitment that has no milestones, no actions and no timeline behind it. “We are committed to achieving Net Zero by 2050” is not a Carbon Reduction Plan. It is a sentence. Evaluators need to see interim targets with specific dates, the actions the organisation is taking now to reduce emissions, and some indication of how progress will be tracked and reported. A vague commitment without milestones is not credible and should not score well.

3. A CRP that has not been updated
A Carbon Reduction Plan should be refreshed at least every 12 months. A CRP last updated in 2022 and resubmitted in 2026 is not compliant and signals to evaluators that carbon reduction is not being actively managed. This is particularly common among suppliers who produced a CRP quickly to meet an initial requirement and have not revisited it since. Emissions data should reflect the most recent full year of operation.

4. Inconsistency with the rest of the bid
The fourth failure is the hardest to fix quickly. If a supplier claims in their social value response that they are committed to reducing their carbon footprint and supporting the buyer’s Net Zero objectives, but their CRP shows no evidence of any emissions reduction activity, that inconsistency will be noticed. Good evaluators cross-reference submissions. Contradictions undermine the credibility of the whole response, not just the CRP section.

Why CRP quality matters to buyers, not just suppliers
When Carbon Reduction Plan quality varies this widely, evaluation becomes harder and less reliable. You are comparing a detailed, evidenced submission from a large supplier with dedicated sustainability resources against a two-page document from an SME that had no idea where to start. Both may be capable of delivering the contract equally well, but only one looks credible on paper.

This affects your outcomes in several ways. You may be scoring in a way that systematically disadvantages capable smaller suppliers who simply lack the knowledge and support to present their emissions data properly. You may be awarding contracts to suppliers whose CRP looks polished but whose actual carbon management is no stronger than others in the field. And if your contract management then requires suppliers to report against their CRP commitments, you will quickly discover whether the document was a genuine plan or a compliance exercise.

There is also a governance dimension. If your organisation has published Net Zero commitments, the supply chain you award contracts to is a significant part of your emissions footprint. Awarding contracts on the basis of CRPs that do not stand up to scrutiny creates a gap between your stated ambitions and your actual impact.

What a compliant, credible Carbon Reduction Plan looks like
A strong CRP submission is specific. It names the baseline year, states the emissions figures for each scope with the methodology used to calculate them, sets named interim targets such as a 30% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, and lists concrete actions already underway. It has been reviewed and signed off at a senior level, it is published on the company website and it has been updated within the last 12 months.

A supplier who has been tracking their emissions through a proper tool that generates compliant Scope 1, 2 and 3 data can produce this. A supplier who is building their CRP from scratch the week before tender submission cannot.

The solution is not to make CRPs easier to produce or to lower the standard. The standard exists for good reason. The solution is to ensure your supply chain has had the opportunity to build genuine capability before the competition opens, so that what arrives in your evaluation portal reflects real emissions management rather than a compliance document produced under pressure.

That is what the Supplier Development Programme is designed to do. Suppliers who complete the Net Zero for SMEs module come away with compliant CRP data, the methodology to support it and a published document they can stand behind. Which means when you open their submission, the document you read is the real thing.

Frequently asked questions
What must a compliant Carbon Reduction Plan include for a public sector tender?
Under PPN 006, a compliant CRP must include: a baseline year and emissions data across Scope 1, 2 and 3; a commitment to achieving Net Zero by 2050; specific interim reduction targets with dates; the actions the organisation is taking to reduce emissions; board-level sign-off; and public publication on the company website. The document must be updated at least every 12 months.

Why do Carbon Reduction Plans fail public sector evaluation?
The four most common reasons are: missing or poorly evidenced Scope 3 emissions data; Net Zero commitments with no milestones or actions behind them; CRPs that have not been updated within the last 12 months; and inconsistencies between the CRP and other sections of the bid, such as the social value response.

Does a small business need a Carbon Reduction Plan to win public sector contracts?
Yes, if you are bidding for central government contracts above £5 million, a compliant CRP is a pass/fail requirement at the selection stage. The NHS requires CRPs across a wider range of procurements. Even where it is not a pass/fail requirement, the quality of your CRP is increasingly scrutinised as part of social value and sustainability evaluation criteria.

What is the difference between Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions?
Scope 1 covers direct emissions from sources the organisation controls, such as fuel burned in company vehicles or on-site boilers. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased electricity. Scope 3 covers all other indirect emissions across the value chain, including business travel, employee commuting, purchased goods and services, and waste. All three scopes must be reported in a compliant Carbon Reduction Plan.

About the author
Paul Smith is a former Head of Procurement in the public sector and founder of ebida. He has spent years on evaluation panels assessing bids across social value, carbon reduction and bid quality, and now works with buyers and suppliers to close the gap between what procurement policy requires and what supply chains can actually deliver. ebida.co.uk | bidpiston.co.uk