Unlike the traditional linear model of ‘take, make and dispose’, a circular economy means we keep our products and materials in use for as long as possible. With this approach, we maximise the value of what we already have through better design and manufacturing and maintaining, reusing, refurbishing, or recycling our items. Read more about the circular economy in this blog post.

The circular economy can also involve implementing circular business models, which allow for the generation of revenue for an organisation without using additional raw materials. The concept relies on a circular, closed-loop system, where organisations make money without using more materials.

Types of Circular Business Models 

The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, Circular Business Models for the Built Environment report outlines how circular business models can be grouped into three different categories: design, use and recovery. Examples include: 

Design 

• Product and process design – This involves planning and designing to improve the service life of components and products. At the design stage, organisations consider how a product is maintained, repaired, upgraded, refurbished, or remanufactured.  

• Circular supplies / inputs – This involves developing new materials to enhance renewable energy, bio-based, less-resource intensive or fully recyclable materials. By thinking innovatively at the design stage, you can enhance product sustainability and performance. 

Fairphone is an example of both – they produce phones using fair and recycled materials, designed to be refurbished and repaired. 

Use 

• Sell and buy back – A product is sold, with the intention of it being purchased back after a period of time. Organisations may buy back one of their products, so they can re-sell it on again at a reduced price or for further use. Circular & Co, a coffee cup brand, run a take back scheme, offering a discount code to customers who return their product back and in turn, giving it a ‘new lease of life’. 

• Lifetime extension – This focuses on extending the service life of products and materials through solutions such as repair, maintenance, or upgrade. Think of products with a lifetime warranty! 

• Product as a service – Product ownership remains with the service provider, with the focus and revenue stream coming from the performance of the service. Signify, a lighting provider, offers ‘light-as-a-service’ where customers pay for the light they use. The service includes installation, maintenance, and repair, reducing overall cost for the customer. 

• Sharing – This service improves utilisation rates of a product, by offering shared use, access, or ownership. Think of car share schemes such as Enterprise car club. 

Recovery 

• Refurbish and maintain – This involves refurbishing and maintaining used products so they can be re-sold. Vivobarefoot have implemented a similar model by creating ReVivo, where they take back returns, refurbish, repair and sell on their products at a lower price. 

• Recovery provider – This involves offering take back schemes or collection services to recover useful resources. The Pallet Loop is an example of this in action, with pallets being recovered, repaired and reused. 

• Support lifecycle – This includes providing the spare parts or add-ons to support the lifecycle of products. IKEA allows for the ordering of smaller parts such as screws and plugs for free, as well as larger furniture parts, allowing customers to retain their item and keep it in use for longer. 

The Benefits 

Implementing a circular business model doesn’t just support waste reduction, it can bring value to you and your organisation. Here are some examples (but not an exhaustive list): 

• Save money. Let’s consider daily life: renting an item of clothing from a rental site for a one-off occasion, will cost less than buying new and save you space. The same goes for your business. Need a drill to build some desks? Renting instead of buying one you’ll only use one, will save you money. 

• Develop a secondary revenue stream. If your product is designed well, to be durable and long lasting, you could adopt a product-as-a-service or sell and buy back model. When your customer no longer needs the product, you can take it back, refurbish and sell it on again. 

• Build long-term relationships. Offering services such as maintaining or repair encourages customer loyalty as they can rely on you. Providing them with a service which is both sustainable and cost-efficient is a win for both sides! 

• Encourage innovation. Identify opportunities for improvement that allow you and your team to think of new, creative solutions. This allows collaboration that benefits both the environment and your organisation. 

Closing thoughts 

Embedding circular business models into your operations offers wide ranging benefits, from reducing costs to enhancing sustainability. Start by looking at what your organisation does and identify opportunities to implement circular economy principles in your everyday activities. 

Adopting a circular approach not only supports waste reduction, but it also makes business sense, leading to cost savings, new revenue streams, and strengthen customer relationships. With various circular models available, you can choose an approach that best aligns with your existing business structure, or the direction you want to go in. 

Interested in a free discovery call about embracing a circular economy? Get in touch with Lucy today.

Reducing carbon emissions in the built environment is a priority for both policymakers and industry. As sustainability standards like BREEAM, LEED, and Level(s) help improve the environmental performance of buildings, the CO₂ Performance Ladder plays a unique and complementary role: focusing not just on buildings, but on the organisations and supply chains behind them. 

Understanding how the Ladder fits alongside asset-based certifications can help organisations take a more integrated approach to decarbonisation.

What is the CO₂ Performance Ladder (the Ladder)?

The CO₂ Performance Ladder is both a procurement instrument and a certifiable CO₂ management system designed to help organisations reduce their carbon footprint. It operates at the organisational and project level, encouraging structured CO₂ and energy management practices across operations and supply chains. 

Organisations can be certified at one of five levels. Lower levels focus on reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions (like energy use and fuel consumption), while higher levels include Scope 3 emissions and broader supply chain engagement. Certification is conducted by accredited independent assessors. Costs vary by organisation size and include: 

• Internal effort to implement systems and measures 

• Certification and audit fees 

• A contribution to the Ladder scheme’s management, based on turnover 

How It Compares to Building Sustainability Standards  

While the CO₂ Performance Ladder focuses on organisational carbon management, tools like BREEAM, LEED, and Level(s) are asset-based frameworks aimed at improving the performance of individual buildings across their lifecycle. 

BREEAM 

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is a multi-level certification for sustainable buildings and infrastructure. It rates assets from “Pass” to “Outstanding” based on a broad environmental performance assessment. Certification is carried out by third-party assessors and verified by BRE Global Ltd. Costs depend on project size, as fees are typically calculated per square metre.  

LEED 

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, covers building design, construction, operations, and neighbourhood development. Projects earn points to achieve one of four levels, from Certified to Platinum. Certification is third-party verified and pricing varies by size and complexity. 

Level(s) 

Level(s) is a European Union framework for improving the environmental performance of buildings. Rather than certification, it offers indicators and methods to guide sustainable design, construction, and operation. 

It has three levels: design strategies (Level 1), performance tracking (Level 2), and post-occupancy evaluation (Level 3). It will become mandatory for large new buildings in 2027, and all new buildings from 2030 under the revised EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Level(s) guidance is freely available online. 

Similarities and Overlaps  

All four systems aim to improve environmental performance and reduce emissions in the built environment. Shared characteristics include: 

• Structured frameworks with defined ambition levels 

• Third-party assessment (except Level(s), which is guidance-based) 

• Use in procurement or project planning 

• Focus on life-cycle impacts 

Key Differences

Criteria	Building Standards (BREEAM, LEED, Level(s))	CO2 Performance Ladder
Scope	Environmental performance of buildings and infrastructure	Organisation and project-level CO₂ and energy reduction
Focus	Broader sustainability: materials, water, public health, waste	Carbon and energy management
Application	Used to design and evaluate individual assets	Used in procurement to reward low-carbon performance
Accreditation	Third-party verifiers (not formally accredited)	Independent certifiers, nationally accredited

Complementary Approaches for Stronger Results

The CO₂ Performance Ladder and building standards like BREEAM, LEED, and Level(s) serve different purposes — but used together, they offer a more complete path to decarbonisation. 

While the Ladder helps organisations cut emissions across their operations and supply chains, building standards focus on improving individual assets. Together, they enable climate action at both the organisational and project level.

To learn more about how your organisation can integrate the Ladder into your decarbonisation journey, contact us today.

What is a Heatwave?

A popular flavour of crisps….? a good day to go to the beach….? a hosepipe ban…? Heatwave is a word that we often hear but have you ever stopped to think about what the term means, and why we seem to be using it more often?

In the UK, the Met Office defines heatwaves differently depending on location. Broadly, 3 days of maximum temperatures exceeding 28^oC in wider London, 27^oC in the wider South-East, 26^oC in central and western areas and 25^oC everywhere else constitute heatwave conditions, which you can see in this map below:

Records Are Breaking – Here’s the Evidence

Last weekend in the South-West of the UK, where I live, temperatures topped a balmy 33^oC. This was off the back of three days with highs ranging from 27 to 30^oC. Firmly in heatwave territory.    

Recent analysis of UK weather records has found that the number of days with temperatures 5^oC above the average for 1961-1990 have doubled in the last 10 years. For days 8^oC above the number has tripled, and for 10^oC above it has quadrupled.

In short, heatwaves are becoming more common and hotter.

Why 1.5°C of Warming Feels Like 33°C on the Ground

When governments talk about things like Net-Zero, they often refer to numbers like 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees of warming. The difference between these numbers and what we experience in a heatwave is stark and can be confusing.

The reason for this is statistical. Government targets refer to average temperatures, and a heatwave is defined by maximum temperatures. In a normal distribution, a small shift in the mean will result in a much bigger change in the likelihood of extremes, and subsequently, extreme temperatures and heatwaves become much more common. The graph below shows how this can happen…

What Heatwaves Mean for the Way We Live

Why does this information matter?

A shift in maximum temperatures has big implications for how we live and how the country operates. Let’s have a look at a couple of examples from the rail industry and the NHS.

In the UK, rail is designed to have a stress-free temperature of 27 degrees (the mean UK summer temperature). As the track gets hot, it expands and wants to buckle; the hotter it gets, the more stress is placed on the sleepers and ballast that keep everything in place. Next time you’re on a train, have a look out the window and you might see certain sections of track painted white – a simple and hopefully effective way to keep temperatures down a bit. Hotter countries have functioning railways, but the summer-to-winter variations in the UK are a real challenge to our infrastructure. Concrete slab track bed can also be used to contain higher forces; however, Network Rail estimates that this approach costs approximately 4 times as much to install as standard ballasted track.

However, the impact of heatwaves is not limited to the material. Heatwaves have much more significant implications for human health and the functioning of the NHS. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) estimated that around 570 people in England and Wales died as a result to heatwave conditions from the 19^th– 22^nd June 2025. Older people were expected to be hit the hardest, and people with underlying health conditions like diabetes, heart conditions and respiratory issues were most vulnerable. People living in more deprived areas are also considered to be more vulnerable. As quoted by Professor Antonio Gasparrini, lead of the EHM lab at the LSHTM, “Every fraction of a degree of warming will cause more hospital admissions and heat deaths, putting more strain on the NHS”.

The Business Cost of Heatwaves

From a business perspective, heat waves have also been shown to have negative impacts on employee productivity. Government research indicates that every degree of indoor heat above 26 degrees costs the UK economy £770 million annually from lost staff days.

What does this mean for you and your business? As heatwaves in the UK become not just more frequent but more intense, the ripple effects will be felt across society. Developing resilience in response to these changes is important, now, at all scales, from global supply chains to national infrastructure, and the welfare of your employees. Understanding where your business vulnerabilities are, and developing appropriate mitigation, will need to be an essential part of your future planning and success.

Contact Action Sustainability to find out more about how you can make your business more resilient to the impacts of climate change.    

The EcoVadis rating system and the CO₂ Performance Ladder (the Ladder) are two powerful tools that support organisations in improving sustainability performance. While they share some common goals, they take different approaches. Understanding how they complement each other can help companies strengthen both internal strategy and supply chain engagement.

Understanding the tools

EcoVadis provides sustainability ratings and improvement tools for global supply chains, focusing on three core areas:

1. Sustainability ratings – A recognised scoring system that assesses environmental, social, and ethical performance. Organisations receive a scorecard highlighting strengths, improvement areas, and medals (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze). This helps buyers assess and compare supplier sustainability, enhancing credibility and competitive advantage. Ratings are valid for one year and are based on company-provided evidence.

2. Carbon management scorecard – Offers insights into greenhouse gas management to support buyers and suppliers in progressing decarbonisation.

3. Continuous improvement tools – Includes training, expert support, and supplier evaluation tools to embed sustainability across the supply chain.

The CO₂ Performance Ladder is a certifiable carbon management system designed to help organisations reduce emissions and energy use. Based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, it supports structured, measurable carbon reduction at both organisational and project levels.

Organisations can certify at five levels, with higher levels addressing Scope 3 emissions and wider supply chain engagement. Certification is conducted by accredited certification bodies through document reviews, site visits, interviews, and audits. Certification is valid for three years, with annual surveillance audits and full recertification required at the end of each cycle.

While the Ladder also touches on broader sustainability themes, its core focus is carbon and energy management.

What are the main similarities?

EcoVadis and the CO₂ Performance Ladder have several common features:

• Sustainability & Carbon Management – Both assess corporate sustainability, with a focus on reducing emissions.
• Performance Evaluation – EcoVadis offers ESG scores; the Ladder certifies carbon management maturity across five levels.
• Supply Chain Engagement – Each tool encourages sustainable procurement by evaluating suppliers’ environmental impact.
• Continuous Improvement – Companies must demonstrate ongoing progress to maintain their rating or certification.
• Strategic Procurement Role – Both tools are used in supplier selection and procurement strategies to support responsible sourcing.

What are the main differences?

Structure, Evaluation & Assurance:

• Ecovadis is a document-based rating system evaluating CSR performance across four themes: Environment, Labour & Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement. Companies complete a tailored questionnaire and submit supporting evidence, which is reviewed by EcoVadis analysts. The result is a scorecard with both theme-specific and overall scores — but no formal certification. It serves as a second-party assessment tool used primarily for benchmarking and supply chain transparency.
• The Ladder is a formal carbon management certification system assessed through a five-level framework, with increasing requirements relating to emissions scope. Certification is conducted by accredited third-party bodies through robust processes, including audits, interviews, and site visits, offering a high level of assurance.

In summary: EcoVadis measures CSR maturity through internal reporting, while the Ladder certifies carbon performance via structured, third-party verification.

Application in Procurement:

• EcoVadis is commonly used to evaluate supplier ESG performance and benchmarking.
• The Ladder incorporates a built-in procurement incentive. Public and private sector buyers can award bonus points or fictitious discounts in tenders for suppliers achieving higher certification levels — directly linking sustainability performance to competitive advantage.

Broader Sustainability Measures:

• EcoVadis takes a broad ESG approach, assessing a wide range of environmental, social, and governance factors, offering a comprehensive view of corporate responsibility.
• The Ladder is primarily focused on carbon, but higher levels expand to include energy efficiency, circularity, stakeholder engagement, and full Scope 3 emissions management.

Additional Work Required

Organisations already rated by EcoVadis may still need to take the following steps to achieve CO₂ Performance Ladder certification:

• Implement a structured CO₂ management system based on the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle
• Calculate full Scope 1 and 2 emissions (and Scope 3 for higher certification levels)
• Set formal emissions reduction targets and demonstrate measurable progress
• Strengthen sustainable procurement with a specific focus on carbon

For organisations already certified under the Ladder, additional requirements for EcoVadis include:

• Expanding the focus beyond carbon to addressing all other EcoVadis themes: Environment, Labour & Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement.

Summary at a Glance

Criteria	EcoVadis	CO2 Performance Ladder
Scope	Scope Comprehensive CSR assessment, covering multiple themes: Environment, Labor & Human Rights, Ethics, and Sustainable Procurement	Specialized, certified carbon management system, emphasising GHG reduction and stakeholder involvement
Structure	Structure Second-party rating based on a documentary review, with an overall score and sub-scores for different themes	Third-party certification (five levels) with audits, interviews, and site visits
Procurement	Supports supplier evaluation and responsible sourcing; no direct incentive mechanism	Built-in incentives in tenders through bonus points or fictitious discounts for suppliers
Validation	Evidence-based rating reviewed by EcoVadis analysts; not formally certified	Third-party validation conducted by accredited certifying bodies
Cost Summary	Costs include the EcoVadis fee (which varies depending on company size and pricing plan) and internal effort to complete detailed questionnaires	Costs include system implementation, third-party audit fees, and SKAO contribution

Conclusion

EcoVadis offers a broad sustainability assessment framework, ideal for evaluating ESG performance across supply chains. The CO₂ Performance Ladder provides a specialised, certifiable approach to carbon management, with structured incentives in procurement. Used together, these tools can complement one another — EcoVadis strengthening supply chain transparency and CSR benchmarking, and the Ladder driving carbon reduction and competitive advantage in tenders.

To learn more about how your organisation can integrate the Ladder into your decarbonisation journey, contact us today.

Back in 2019, CCLA formed the “Find it, Fix it, Prevent it” investor initiative. In 2023, they launched the CCLA Modern Slavery UK Benchmark, and last year they published the 2024 edition. This year they have published the CCLA Modern Slavery Global Benchmark pilot, which builds on the UK benchmark by applying its approach, assessing the modern slavery related disclosures of the top 100 Global companies that ‘supply goods or services’ in the UK and are therefore subject to Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act.

The aims of the benchmark are to:

• Develop a framework on the degree to which companies are active in the fight against modern slavery
• Create an objective assessment of corporate modern slavery performance aligned with UK statutory requirements, UK government guidance, and international voluntary standards on business and human rights
• Support investors’ engagement with companies on their approach to modern slavery
• Provide a vehicle for learning and sharing of good practice
• Create a mechanism to leverage business competition to drive improvement in practice.

These benchmarks are great at identifying which sectors and organisations are leading or lacking in their action to tackle modern slavery and to highlight areas for improvement. In addition, this global benchmark demonstrates which regions are performing better than others.

The benchmarking framework is broken down into five sections:

1. UK Modern Slavery Act compliance and registry
2. Conformance with UK Home Office Guidance
3. Find it
4. Fix it
5. Prevent it

So what were the key findings? Here are my top 5 takeaways:

1. There was more transparency on policy and procedure and less transparency on practice and remedy. For example, across the benchmark sections, compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act and Conformance with the UK Home Office Guidance were the strongest scoring areas whereas ‘Fix it’, which incorporates the requirement to provide ‘remedy’ when adverse human rights impacts are identified, was the lowest scoring area.
2. Most companies only go as far as desk-based risk assessment and due diligence. For example, even though 70 companies had disclosures about how they conduct risk assessments, only 14 demonstrated that they were integrating on the ground information into their assessments, and although 77 companies disclosed that they had a whistleblowing mechanism, only 40 reported the number of reports that had been received.
3. Companies appear reluctant to disclose findings of modern slavery. For example, only 23 companies disclosed finding a case of modern slavery, which raises concerns about reputation and the effectiveness of due diligence processes – ‘you can’t fix what you have not found’. The benchmark does call out some examples of best practice in this space, predominantly in the technology sector. Of the 18 companies in the sector, 8 disclosed finding cases of modern slavery, and 6 provided details on ‘steps taken to end and mitigate ongoing risks’, including case studies of repaying recruitment fees and addressing modern slavery risks primarily in Malaysia and Taiwan.
4. There is a huge gap between policy and practice when it comes to responsible procurement. For example, 48 companies had a policy on responsible procurement practices but only 9 companies disclosed how these worked in practice and supply chain transparency is lacking with only 26 companies awarded a point for partially disclosing their direct (tier one) suppliers’ locations.
5. We still have a long way to go! Out of the potential 62 points available in the benchmarking, the highest score achieved by a company was 54, and the lowest overall score was 3, with an average of 30. The report identifies the following areas for improvement for companies:
   • To improve governance on modern slavery and to include stakeholder engagement and worker voice, which is reiterated in the recently updated Home Office’s Transparency in Supply Chains (Section 54)
   • To conduct more detailed risk assessments, including assessment of forced labour risks in direct operations and beyond tier one of the supply chain
   • Again in alignment with the updated Transparency in Supply Chains Guidelines, to provide details of suspected cases of modern slavery and what steps have been taken to provide a remedy for victims and the outcomes of this process
   • To implement responsible procurement practices that enable and encourage suppliers to conduct best practice due diligence.

If these key improvement areas are something your organisation would like support with, book a discovery call with our Modern Slavery experts to find out more or take a look at our report on Addressing Modern Slavery in Solar PV Supply Chains.

Action Sustainability is thrilled to announce that the Supply Chain Sustainability School (UK) – which we lead and deliver – has officially joined the Construction Leadership Council’s (CLC) Construct Zero programme as a Business Champion.

This recognition reflects our continued commitment to driving sustainability and decarbonisation across the construction sector through the School’s collaborative learning platform and industry engagement.

As part of the Construct Zero initiative, we’re proud to support the sector’s ambitious goal of achieving Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Through our leadership of the School, we’ll work alongside other Business Champions to deliver tangible actions that accelerate the industry’s transition to a low-carbon future. This aligns directly with our mission to help businesses embed sustainability, optimise supply chain practices, and reduce their carbon footprint.

Construct Zero remains a key force in the UK’s decarbonisation efforts, and we’re excited to contribute our expertise, tools, and training to drive meaningful change. Together, we can shape a more sustainable built environment.

Ready to start your own carbon reduction journey? Book a discovery call with our carbon consultants today and let’s discuss how we can help you achieve your sustainability goals.

If I was given £1 for every time I heard the word autoclaves when engaging with the Higher Education sector to support them on sustainable procurement, I would be a millionaire by now. 

When we think about sustainable laboratories functioning and their efficiency, water use and its ethical disposal play an important part. And this is true not just for colleges and universities but also for the medical profession and research organisations. The challenge lies in helping higher education departments and medical professionals examine their working practices to incorporate sustainability considerations. 

Laboratories use water for reliable and repeated experiments, sterilising equipment, as a solvent for chemicals, purification of substances and many more purposes. The controlled use, however, and disposal are not always taken care of. 

An equipment/machine that is used in laboratories in an autoclave. An autoclave is used to decontaminate certain biological waste and sterilise media, instruments and labware. Typical loads include laboratory glassware, other equipment and waste, surgical instruments, and medical waste. The use of autoclaves can be water and energy-intensive, and this is due to a number of reasons including: 

• Choosing the wrong size 

• Choosing the wrong type of autoclave for your purpose 

• Using them frequently, rather than consolidating loads  

Autoclaves and sterilisers are a necessity in the lab, but there are some smart ways of using them.  

You can learn more about the efficiency measures in this area from Department of Life Sciences at Imperial College London and the work to replace autoclaves at their institution. 

A significant tool/standard, as developed by UCL to improve the sustainability and efficiency of laboratories, is LEAF, the Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework. The LEAF framework contains actions which lab users can take to save: 

• plastics 

• water 

• energy 

• other resources. 

These are proven to be effective without detrimental impact on the quality or progress of the science. Participating organisations are given a bronze, silver or gold level award depending on how the actions are implemented. 

While the above solutions involve internal stakeholder engagement and considerations, there are also some sustainability-based criteria that you can embed within your procurement process for your supply chain. One of these is ACT. 

The My Green Lab® ACT ® Ecolabel was designed to address the need of both scientists and procurement specialists for clear, third-party verified information about the environmental impact of laboratory products. By emphasising Accountability, Consistency, and Transparency (ACT) around manufacturing, energy and water use, packaging, and end-of-life, ACT makes it easy to choose more sustainable products.  ACT-labelled products are independently audited by Verico and published by My Green Lab. 

The criteria for the ACT label, also known as the Environmental Impact Factor (EIF) criteria, were developed with input from industry experts and external stakeholders. Scientists, sustainability directors, procurement specialists, and manufacturers all provided valuable feedback on the EIF criteria, resulting in the most comprehensive product labelling program for life science products. 
 The ACT label process entails third-party verification of the sustainable impacts of a product, its operations, and its end of life. Completing this process is a significant achievement that offers a baseline and framework for continuous improvement for the manufacturing community

You can gain access to ACT database for laboratory consumables, equipment, chemicals and reagents here. 

In embedding these sustainability criteria in your procurement process, it is important to have early engagement with your existing supply chain to understand what credentials they already have, what is their capacity and capability to provide these ethical and sustainable solutions.   

Read here about how Imperial College have engaged their departments, procurement function and supply chain to ensure sustainable procurement becomes business as usual in their operations. 

To give you insights on best practice in sustainable procurement for laboratories, we invite you to our webinar on the 17^th July 2025, ‘Laboratories and ethical sourcing: best practice in sustainable procurement‘ and we invite you all to be there.  

By attending this virtual conference, you will:   

• Learn about the existing HE consortia frameworks for laboratories’ sub-categories 

• Understand the risks and opportunities for lab efficiencies 

• Hear from HE organisations on their implementation measures for lab efficiency and sustainability 

If you are a Higher Education organisation, research organisation and require support on strengthening your procurement process and contract management duties, please reach out to Lead Sustainable Procurement Consultant – Mellita D’silva  

ISO 20400:2017 and the CO₂ Performance Ladder (the Ladder) are two influential frameworks for embedding sustainability in procurement. While one provides strategic guidance, the other serves as both a procurement instrument and a certifiable CO₂ management system, making them highly complementary. This article explores how these frameworks intersect and how organisations can benefit from applying them in tandem. 

What is the CO₂ Performance Ladder (the Ladder)? 

The CO₂ Performance Ladder is both a procurement instrument and a certifiable CO₂ management system. Developed in the Netherlands, it is now widely used across Europe to integrate emissions reduction into business operations, projects, and supply chains.

As a certifiable CO₂ management system, the Ladder helps organisations reduce their CO₂ emissions and operate more sustainably. It consists of five levels, each reflecting a greater commitment to decarbonisation. At the lower levels, organisations focus on optimising their own business operations by reducing energy consumption and cutting direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 2) emissions. Higher levels challenge organisations to look beyond their own footprint, including supply chains and industry-wide activities (Scope 3). Certification is awarded through independent verification, ensuring credibility and transparency.

In addition to being a certifiable CO₂ management system, the Ladder is widely used as a procurement instrument. Procuring organisations apply the Ladder in tender processes to incentivise sustainable supplier behaviour—typically through fictitious discounts or points-based systems in award evaluations. This dual role makes the Ladder a powerful mechanism for accelerating decarbonisation both within individual organisations and across value chains.

What is ISO 20400:2017?

ISO 20400:2017 is an international standard providing guidance on sustainable procurement. Unlike certification standards, ISO 20400 is a voluntary guidance framework, useful for helping organisations of any size or sector integrate sustainability within procurement policies and practices. It covers environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

It encourages organisations to:

• Align procurement with sustainability goals 

• Engage suppliers and stakeholders 

• Consider full life-cycle impacts and cost 

• Establish good governance and a cycle of continuous improvement

What are the main similarities between the Ladder and ISO 20400:2017? 

Voluntary Participation: 

Both tools are voluntary but signal a strong commitment to driving sustainability across operations and procurement. 

Sustainable Procurement Focus: 

Each framework empowers organisations to influence supplier practices, improve decision-making, and prioritise long-term environmental and social value. 

Stakeholder Engagement: 

Both encourage meaningful internal and external collaboration—whether with cross-functional teams or key suppliers and partners. 

Continuous Improvement: 

ISO 20400:2017 promotes ongoing enhancement of procurement practices, and the Ladder is built around the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle—ensuring carbon reduction becomes an iterative, embedded process.

What are the main differences?

Scope, Structure and Certification: 

• ISO 20400:2017 is a guidance standard with a wide sustainability focus across procurement. It is not certifiable. 

• The Ladder is a certifiable system focused specifically on CO₂ reduction, embedded within a management system framework. It offers multi-level certification verified by accredited auditors. 

Application in Procurement: 

• ISO 20400:2017 shapes how procurement decisions are made (policies, processes, supplier criteria). 

• The Ladder provides an incentivisation mechanism in procurement, including the use of fictitious discounts or points-based systems in award evaluations. This approach rewards higher ambition levels and drives systemic decarbonisation across supply chains. 

Costs of Engagement and Certification:  

• ISO 20400:2017 there is a minimal cost related to purchasing the standard. There is a free self-assessment tool available, however organisations can also opt to approach third parties / consultancy for external assessments to review their alignment to ISO 20400.  

• The Ladder: Achieving certification has associated costs, including contributions to the scheme manager (based on organisation size), internal resources required for implementation, and third-party audit fees, which can vary depending on the certification level and auditor. 

Additional Work Required for Compliance to the Ladder and ISO 20400:2017

• For organisations aligned to ISO 20400 looking to adopt the Ladder: Additional effort is needed to build a carbon management system, quantify emissions (Scopes 1–3), and achieve certification through third-party audits. 

• For organisations certified against the Ladder looking to align with ISO 20400: While the Ladder already includes some procurement and stakeholder requirements, aligning with ISO 20400 may involve expanding the scope to include social and economic sustainability dimensions and enhancing governance practices. 

Summary at a Glance

Criteria	ISO 20400:2017	CO2 Performance Ladder
Scope	Sustainable procurement with a wide sustainability focus (social, environmental, economic)	A management system for carbon reduction
Structure	Voluntary guidance, flexible implementation	Multi-level certification
Procurement	Shapes sustainable procurement decisions	Multi-level incentivisation through fictitious discounts in procurement
Validation	No certification; self-assessment or third-party assessment are possible	Third-party validation conducted by accredited certifying bodies
Cost Summary	Costs associated with purchasing the standard and, third-party assessments (optional)	Costs include a contribution to the scheme manager (based on organisation size), internal resources for implementation, and third-party auditing fees. Auditing fees vary based on level, organisation size and auditor

ISO 20400 offers strategic, flexible guidance, while the Ladder provides a certifiable, performance-based structure focused on decarbonisation and procurement incentives. Together, they offer a holistic and practical pathway to transform procurement from a transactional function into a key driver of sustainability. Organisations aiming to decarbonise supply chains while embedding broader sustainability principles stand to benefit greatly from integrating both frameworks. 

To learn how the CO₂ Performance Ladder can support your organisation’s decarbonisation journey, contact us today.

When stepping into the world of procurement, it’s easy to believe that success hinges primarily on cost savings and timely delivery. But today, the landscape has changed -dramatically. In a fast-moving global market, growing investor pressure, geopolitical disruptions, and unpredictable supply chains have fundamentally reshaped how procurement operates. 

Through work with a range of clients, it has become clear that risk, resilience, and sustainability can no longer be treated as isolated priorities. These forces are now deeply interconnected, and navigating their intersection is essential to developing strategies that not only protect value but also create it over the long term. 

This experience has reinforced just how critical it is to embed risk, resilience, and sustainability into procurement practices. These are not abstract principles or industry buzzwords – they manifest in tangible ways, from supply chain disruptions to shifting regulatory landscapes and rising stakeholder expectations around ESG performance. 

This post shares insights drawn directly from those experiences, not from theory, but from real-world engagement and on-the-ground challenges.

Why This Intersection Matters

 The intersection of risk, resilience, and sustainability isn’t just a theoretical sweet spot – it’s where real business value gets created (or lost!). 

• Risk is no longer just about price volatility or contract terms. It’s about supply disruptions, climate risks, geopolitical instability (we all are witnessing this), and supplier failures that can bring entire operations to a standstill. 

• Resilience means having the ability to bounce back whether that’s through agile procurement processes or diversified wider supplier networks.  

• Sustainability is the licence to operate in the market. ESG factors from social value to carbon emissions to labour practices – are now influencing supplier selection, investor expectations, and regulatory compliance.  

When procurement strategies integrate all three elements, the payoff is real: reduced vulnerabilities, increased innovation, and a stronger competitive edge. So, then the question becomes why not? 

We’ve pulled together a handy Cheat Sheet: Integrating Risk, Resilience & Sustainability in Procurement – a quick-reference guide based on real-world lessons and practical steps. 

• Start with Supplier Mapping: Identify critical suppliers and their geographic locations. Understand dependencies, tier-2 and tier-3 supplier exposure. 

• Map supplier risks holistically: Include environmental, social, and geopolitical risks. 

• Prioritise supplier diversity: Avoid overdependence on a single source, especially from high-risk regions. Include clauses for agile responses in contracts (e.g., expedited shipping, price variation etc.).  

• Embed sustainability criteria in sourcing: Make environmental and social responsibility a standard part of supplier evaluation. Track supplier sustainability performance over time. 

• Foster collaboration and transparency: Build trust with suppliers through open communication and shared goals. Share your expectations clearly around risk, resilience, and sustainability. 

• Leverage technology: Use analytics and real-time monitoring to detect risks early and respond swiftly. This is no longer just a “good to have” it’s a must-have for effective supplier risk management. 

• Build Internal Capability: Train procurement teams on new ways of risk management and ESG topics. With consistent practice, integrated thinking should become a core part of procurement KPIs. 

How Siemens Mobility Is Redefining Procurement

It is evident that the intersection of risk, resilience, and sustainability in procurement is no longer a nice-to-have – it’s quickly becoming the new standard. By focusing on these areas, companies do more than protect their operations they actively shape a more responsible and adaptable way of doing business. It’s about staying competitive, yes, but also about doing what’s right for the planet, people and long-term performance.

Our collaboration with Siemens Mobility UK exemplifies how sustainable procurement can drive both business value and supply chain resilience. By embedding principles of sustainability alongside a strong focus on risk and resilience, Siemens Mobility is setting a new standard in the industry. At a time when supply chains face increasing pressure from environmental, geopolitical, and economic disruptions, this approach represents a crucial step forward in building future-ready, responsible supply networks.

Dimitrios Ntemplas, Chief Procurement Officer Siemens Mobility – “Sustainable procurement isn’t a trend — it’s a transformation. Our supply chains must reflect the future we want to build: resilient, ethical, and environmentally low-impact. Every decision we make as procurement leaders shapes that future.” 

Industry leaders like Siemens Mobility are at the forefront, integrating these priorities into their procurement strategies. The result? Smarter decisions, stronger outcomes, and more resilient, responsible supply chains. 

Ultimately, procurement holds the potential to be more than just a process- it is a catalyst for resilience, innovation, and real, measurable impact. Here’s to building supply chains that not only withstand shocks but also drive meaningful change. 

Connect with our sustainable procurement specialists in a free discovery call to future-proof your procurement strategy against sustainability challenges and risks. 

Modern slavery affects an estimated 50 million people worldwide. To end this exploitation, one thing is clear: we must listen to those who have lived through it. Survivors of modern slavery are not just part of the solution, they are the heart of it. Their firsthand insights into how exploitation happens and what victims truly need are invaluable. By centring survivor voices, we can craft responses at every level that are more informed and effective.

From victim to expert: embracing survivor leadership 

For too long, people who escaped modern slavery have been seen only as “victims”. They were rarely invited into decision-making and often only asked to recount their trauma for awareness campaigns, without a say in shaping solutions. This exclusion was a major missed opportunity. Now, a shift is underway toward “nothing about us, without us” the idea that anti-slavery policies should not be made without survivor input. Survivors are increasingly recognised as experts by experience, taking on roles as advisers and researchers. Survivor-led initiatives are guiding governments and organisations on how to involve lived experience at every stage. Survivors are now helping lead the fight against it.

Shaping better policy through lived experience

Good policy starts with good evidence and survivors provide both. Including people with lived experience in policymaking isn’t just ethical, it’s practical. The UK’s Modern Slavery Policy and Evidence Centre notes that evidence drawn directly from survivor experiences is key to improving the policies to address modern slavery. The voices of those affected must be heard for anti-slavery efforts to work.

In practice, survivor input is already making policy stronger. Here in the UK, the charity Unseen works with survivor consultants to shape its research and support. Bringing survivors into bridge the gap between theory and lived reality, so recommendations don’t overlook real challenges. Unseen’s survivor consultants have contributed to parliamentary inquiries and co-authored research highlighting gaps in support services. Rather than outsiders guessing what victims need, survivors are helping to point policymakers in the right direction.

Take a look at our Modern Slavery consultancy page to learn more about what we offer.

Driving awareness with survivor voices 

Survivor stories have a unique power to spur public action. When someone who endured slavery shares their story, it puts a human face on an often-hidden crime. Their testimony cuts through abstract statistics and inspires action. Recognising this, many campaigns now elevate survivor voices. On the UK’s Anti-Slavery Day, the #TimeToListen campaign urged people to hear directly from survivors and treat them as experts by experience. Survivors have become powerful advocates for raising awareness and keeping the issue in the spotlight. Importantly, they share their experiences not to seek pity, but to help others, using their voices to shape a better future for those at risk. By amplifying survivor voices, advocacy becomes more credible and impactful.

Improving frontline responses and support 

Those with lived experience can also improve how we help victims on the ground. Survivors know what support truly makes a difference in escaping exploitation and rebuilding their lives. By consulting survivors, frontline agencies can design effective, trauma-informed training and support programmes. 

In the UK, a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) of survivor consultants has helped develop victim-centred training for first responders. Police guidance on modern slavery investigations was updated with survivors’ input. Likewise, Unseen’s survivor consultants have directly trained police on handling cases sensitively. First responders become more empathetic, more victims are identified, and support services better meet real needs. 

The fight against modern slavery can only be won by designing solutions with survivors, not just for them. It’s time to listen, learn, and let survivors lead the way. 

Book a free discovery call with our modern slavery specialists to strengthen your due diligence and see how we can support your organisation.