How Procurement Is Being Used to Drive Net Zero Outcomes

“Net zero” used to live in the preamble of tender documents. In 2025 it increasingly lives in the evaluation criteria and contract schedules, shaping who wins and how performance is tracked after award. Buyers are moving from broad sustainability statements to auditable emissions information—what your baseline is today, what reductions you’re committing to, and how progress will be proven over the contract term.

On the buy-side, two patterns stand out. First, requests for recognised frameworks: Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) alignment, ISO 14001, or equivalent environmental management systems that make governance visible. Second, scope clarity: agencies specify which scopes are in play (Scope 1 and 2 at minimum; Scope 3 where material) and expect measurement methods that can be re-performed in an audit. If you claim reductions, you’ll be asked how data is captured, who owns it, and how it will be verified.

The levers differ by category. In infrastructure and asset-heavy projects, tenders now price embodied carbon and construction-phase emissions alongside program and cost. That shows up as alternate designs with lower-carbon materials, delivery methods that reduce generator runtime and idle heavy plant, or site logistics that cut unnecessary movements. In services and ICT, attention shifts to energy use, travel patterns, data centre selection and equipment refresh cycles—the operational choices that actually move a contract’s footprint.

Contracts are tightening accordingly. Schedules increasingly set reporting cadences (quarterly or semi-annual), name the data fields to be captured, and require correction plans if performance drifts from the declared trajectory. Penalties are still rare, but performance incentives tied to verified reductions or milestone achievements (e.g., electrifying a portion of fleet, migrating workloads to facilities with certified renewable supply) are becoming more common.

Evaluation teams are getting more comfortable comparing carbon, cost and capability in the same frame. Rather than awarding marks for a generic “sustainability plan,” evaluators score the coherence between delivery method, price and emissions. If a bidder promises deep cuts using the cheapest, least flexible delivery model, marks are lost for inconsistency. Conversely, bids that present lifecycle costings (capex, opex and emissions) with credible assumptions tend to read as better value for money.

Market engagement is happening earlier. Prior to release, buyers are signalling which emissions factors will be material, which standards they’ll recognise, and where they’re open to alternatives (e.g., power purchase agreements, or verified offsets only after abatement options are exhausted). That clarity reduces “greenwash by accident” and lets suppliers price compliance without guesswork.

Importantly, net zero is being woven into—rather than set against—other public objectives: SME participation, Indigenous procurement, regional development. The practical message is that success often comes from stacking compliance credibly while staying competitive on delivery. Bids that make trade-offs legible—what’s included, what’s optional, and how risks are managed—give evaluators confidence that outcomes can be delivered and measured without heroic effort.

Why this matters to government tendering

• Evidence beats aspiration: baselines, methods and third-party assurances carry more weight than high-level pledges.
• Design choices are scored: lower-carbon materials, electrified plant, renewable data centres and realistic abatement sequencing now move marks.
• Reporting is delivery: build the data pipeline (systems, roles, cadence) into your method so the contract can be managed without manual workarounds.