Online event
Our CSR Webinars
×
Check out our webinars, replays, and upcoming sessions to start taking action on your CSR strategy.
Sign up for the next sessionCheck out our webinars, replays, and upcoming sessions to start taking action on your CSR strategy.
Sign up for the next sessionDiscover what the mandatory environmental criterion in public procurement changes: how to respond with evidence, and a 5-step routine to turn requirements into a competitive advantage.
Public procurement is evolving. And this time, it’s not just a CSR trend: it’s a requirement that directly impacts your bids, the evidence you need to provide, and even how you execute your contracts. In France, Article 35 of the Climate and Resilience Law mandates that public procurement must contribute to sustainable development by integrating economic, social, and environmental dimensions.
What’s changing? Public buyers must not only include an environmental criterion in the award process, but also provide for more demanding environmental execution clauses, complete with specific goals and monitoring procedures. In other words: you will no longer just be “audited” on your pitch. You will be evaluated on your ability to prove, measure, and sustain your results over time.
In this article, we break down the requirements, explain what contracting authorities are looking for, and offer a practical 5-step routine to structure your bids and secure your contract execution.
Article 35 of the Climate and Resilience Law reinforces a simple principle: public procurement must contribute to sustainable development, covering economic, social, and environmental aspects.
In public debate, this logic also stems from a simple observation: incentive-based policies already existed, such as goals for “environmental consideration” in contracts, but they lacked sufficient teeth. As a result, the targets weren’t being met.
One speaker summarized the situation quite clearly: for the 2015-2020 period, the goal was 30% of contracts to include environmental considerations, but actual performance stalled at 15.8%. For 2022-2025, the target was 100% by 2025, yet we remained stuck around 25%. Since “incentives” weren’t enough, the legislature made the requirement mandatory.
The core of the reform rests on two complementary mechanisms.
Whenever the procedure requires it, the buyer must include an environmental criterion in the scoring of bids. It must be precise, related to the subject of the contract, and accompanied by a published weighting.
This point is crucial: it’s not just a “vague bonus.” It’s a ranking lever. According to an analysis of published notices, about 80% of notices have included an environmental criterion since August 2021, compared to 54% before. These figures primarily indicate how quickly this requirement is becoming standard practice.
Another useful data point: the average observed weight for environmental criteria in scoring grids is around 10%. And that 10% can be a game-changer: one speaker illustrated that in a scenario where price accounts for 40% and technical value for 50%, a difference of just a few points on the environmental score can be enough to move you up or down the rankings, even if your pricing differs.
The second shift: environmental considerations shouldn't just be “written to win.” They must be upheld during execution.
The environmental execution clause must avoid overly general phrasing like “the contractor shall comply with regulations.” The expectation is now an approach that includes:
In practical terms, this means your commitments become contractual obligations. And therefore, potentially a source of penalties if you don’t keep your promises.
One point was hammered home: regardless of the contract value, environmental requirements “apply” under Article 35, even if the depth of the requirement varies.
The message for businesses: don't think of the environment as just a "formal procedure topic". Even in the simplest approach, you will already have contractual obligations. And as soon as you enter more structured procedures, your environmental performance can become a ranking factor.
Even though Article 35 focuses primarily on the environment as a core expectation here, it is useful to understand the social logic.
The social obligation relates to social execution conditions (and sometimes employment support), assessed lot by lot. A social criterion that goes "above and beyond" the company's general policy is not recommended: buyers prefer elements specific to the contract.
A benchmark has been provided: the integration clause has supposedly existed for about 37 years, but only applies to about 13% of contracts exceeding €90,000. This shows that social requirements aren't automatic everywhere, but remain an area to anticipate when they are triggered.
Behind the reform, the buyer has three objectives.
In practice, this means building a logic for collecting evidence and, sometimes, recalculating or measuring based on the project's scope.
Environmental criteria vary by sector, but there are recurring themes.
We often see:
Criteria frequently focus on:
In services, expectations often come down to:
What stands out in every case: commitments phrased in "proof + measurement + deadline" language.
One risk was clearly identified: if your commitments become award criteria and performance clauses, then "over-promising" or "vague promises" can backfire on you.
This doesn't mean the process is purely restrictive. The speakers emphasize a winning strategy instead: the better you structure your data and evidence, the more you can:
To move past the ambiguity, a simple method was proposed: a continuous improvement loop that turns every response into a "reusable building block."
Goal: build a kit to understand the requirements.
In the tender documents, look for:
Practical definition: "Breaking down the tender" means identifying all environmental expectations and turning them into an actionable list: what to provide, when, in what format, and how it's audited.
Goal: stop starting from scratch for every bid.
The kit can include:
The key idea: a structured library to respond quickly, but also consistently.
Goal: make your commitments visible and verifiable.
A simple framework often helps to structure things:
Goal: turn a "good intention" into an attributable commitment.
To score points, the key is this triptych:
Without data and a timeline, your response risks remaining "unverifiable."
Goal: improve performance from one proposal to the next.
Four key habits:
A speaker made a useful point: overall scores aren't enough. Asking for detailed feedback helps you truly improve.
To illustrate the "evidence + measurement + execution" mechanism, a use case from a construction company was presented.
The need: provide a carbon footprint calculation for construction sites upfront, then produce precise data during the contract.
The common challenge: the data exists, but it's scattered (materials, machinery, vehicles, travel, management controls, etc.). Without automation, calculations become too time-consuming and too imprecise, making them difficult to use for scoring criteria.
The solution described relies on a tool-based chain:
The challenge isn't just to "do a calculation." It's to produce data that is:
The new environmental criteria in public procurement are a game changer. They demand discipline: precise criteria, tangible evidence, and controlled execution. In this landscape, the winning company isn't necessarily the one with the "greenest pitch," but the one that knows how to turn its data into quantified, verifiable, and sustainable commitments.
If you take away only one thing, let it be this: the environment is now a management issue, not just a PR one. With a 5-step routine, you can reduce the effort required to respond, ensure reliable execution, and build a lasting competitive edge.
Would you like me to provide a downloadable checklist (text format) based on the 5-step routine, tailored to your sector (works, supplies, services)?
