Standards and reporting
Carbon Reduction Plan software
Carbon Reduction Plan software should connect a defined procurement request to an evidence-backed, reviewed and published plan rather than turn an inventory dashboard into an assumed tender response PPN 006 Technical Standard.
What should the software brief actually request?
Start with the applicable procurement condition and the current official document pack before specifying the plan workflow Scope and action Owner pack.
Module 01 / 04
Policy profile
Name the relevant route and retain the tender instruction.
Module 02 / 04
Bidding entity
Identify the supplier whose commitment and emissions will be stated.
Module 03 / 04
Outputs
Specify the published plan, bid response and supporting working export.
Module 04 / 04
Responsibilities
Allocate preparation, technical review, approval and publication.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The Carbon Reduction Plan guide explains the procurement requirement, while this guide tests the system supporting the response.
Which fictional errors should a demonstration include?
This invented service supplier gives each bidder the same deliberately imperfect plan file.
| Record or decision | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Wrong entity | A parent-company name appears in a draft for a subsidiary bidder | Show how the discrepancy is flagged and reviewed. |
| Coverage gap | The commuting field is blank although other categories contain data | Preserve missing status rather than fill it with zero. |
| Late correction | A corrected source changes the current emissions after approval | Identify the affected plan and approval record. |
| Publication mismatch | The website file is an older version than the bid attachment | Show which version was actually published and submitted. |
How should the product distinguish procurement routes?
PPN 006, earlier procurements and the separate NHS guidance need identifiable source bases rather than one undated compliance switch Timing NHS owner guidance.
Module 01 / 04
Instruction
Save the request and policy reference received by the bid team.
Module 02 / 04
Configuration
Show the template and checks associated with the selected route.
Module 03 / 04
Update
Explain how an owner-document change is assessed and released.
Module 04 / 04
Decision
Keep the person who selected the applicable route identifiable.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The product should not decide that every organisation needs a CRP merely because a procurement module exists.
Ask the demonstrator to change the route and show which fields or review questions change.
What should the field map make visible?
Map the published plan to the official template structure while retaining its supporting evidence Annex A template Reporting requirements.
| Record or decision | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment | Named supplier, organisational commitment and target year | Avoid a group slogan replacing the bidder’s actual declaration. |
| Baseline and current data | Reporting periods, scopes and calculation references | Show which inventory version each summary uses. |
| Targets and projects | Approved wording and evidence for measures | Distinguish a proposal from an adopted action. |
| Declaration | Approval and sign-off details | Inspect the final rendered wording as well as system status. |
How can the buyer test entity and boundary controls?
The plan’s UK emissions boundary and consolidation approach need to remain explicit, with parent reliance subject to the policy’s conditions Paragraphs 16 and 22 Paragraph 10.
Module 01 / 04
Organisation
Connect data sources to the bidder or documented parent-plan basis.
Module 02 / 04
Approach
Retain the selected financial-control, operational-control or equity-share judgement.
Module 03 / 04
Period
Show baseline and current periods without silently mixing them.
Module 04 / 04
Review
Keep the named person accepting the boundary and any qualifications.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The Corporate Standard supplies the organisational boundary framework rather than the platform creating a new one Chapter 3.
In the fixture, the parent name cannot be corrected merely by changing the front-page logo if the underlying coverage differs.
Ask for the data mapping and decision record accompanying any replacement entity name.
How should the CRP subset be tested?
The required subset has five Scope 3 categories alongside full Scope 1 and 2, so a completion score should not obscure category status Scope guidance.
| Record or decision | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Direct and purchased energy | Connect the sources to the appropriate Scope 1 and 2 working | The Technical Standard directs preparation to reporting guidance Environmental Reporting Guidelines. |
| Transport categories | Keep upstream and downstream transport distinguishable | Retain the method and source evidence. |
| Travel and commuting | Show separate fields and collection owners | Do not treat an employee business trip as a commuting response. |
| Operational waste | Retain activity and treatment-route working | Allow the reviewer to inspect the estimate. |
What should a correction demonstration prove?
Retain source quantities, factor versions and the resulting calculation so a changed input can be traced into the plan summary Annual-factor context Methodology.
Module 01 / 04
Original
Export the initial activity, factor and calculated result.
Module 02 / 04
Correction
Change a source quantity while preserving its replacement reason.
Module 03 / 04
Propagation
Identify every plan table or narrative affected by the change.
Module 04 / 04
Review
Show the task requiring a person to check the revised output.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The fictional supplier corrects an omitted fuel record after its draft has been reviewed.
The useful test is whether the system reveals the changed figure and affected approval, not whether it automatically generates a more attractive footprint.
What should the supporting export contain?
Specify a reviewable evidence pack separately from the public-facing summary plan.
| Record or decision | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Source data | Original quantities, periods, units and document references | Make the summary amounts reproducible. |
| Methods | Factors, allocations, estimates and category decisions | Explain how the result was prepared. |
| Plan mapping | Which working version feeds each published figure | Prevent mismatched inventory and report versions. |
| Open issues | Missing evidence, owner, action and review decision | Retain uncertainty rather than export only completed fields. |
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
The ESG collection guide helps define the evidence owners before a software migration.
How should targets and measures be managed?
The plan must describe relevant environmental management measures, so the system should retain the approved action narrative rather than only a numerical target Paragraphs 10–11.
Module 01 / 04
Status
Distinguish adopted measures from ideas awaiting approval.
Module 02 / 04
Applicability
Record whether the bidder can use the measure when performing the contract.
Module 03 / 04
Owner
Identify the person responsible for maintaining the narrative and evidence.
Module 04 / 04
Change
Retain revised wording and the decision supporting it.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Give the demonstrator an action described as implemented in the report but only proposed in the source register.
Ask how the discrepancy reaches the reviewer and how the corrected public wording is recorded.
A product should support that conversation without converting forecasts into achieved reductions.
What should approval and publication tests inspect?
The Technical Standard specifies approval, named sign-off and publication information that should survive the document-generation process Paragraphs 23–25.
| Record or decision | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Approval evidence | The approved document version and decision date | A completed task checkbox alone does not identify the approved text. |
| Named sign-off | Name, role and date in the final file | Check that the rendered declaration contains the intended details. |
| Published version | Actual public URL and the file served there | Resolve the fixture’s old-website/new-attachment mismatch. |
| Refresh | A named owner and next review working | Support annual updating without implying an automatic legal judgement. |
How should internal evidence and public output be separated?
Specify access to the working evidence separately from the public plan the Technical Standard asks suppliers to publish Publication guidance.
Module 01 / 03
Collection
Keep the original evidence available to its named reviewers.
Module 02 / 03
Working
Retain the assumptions and calculation references behind summary figures.
Module 03 / 03
Public file
Inspect exactly which content the generated plan exposes.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
Use fictional commuting survey records to test whether a public-plan export reveals unnecessary individual-level collection detail.
What should an export-permission test inspect?
These original tests distinguish internal evidence from the intended public summary.
| Record or decision | What to preserve | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Raw collection | Fictional individual commuting responses | Inspect who can view and export them. |
| Calculation working | Aggregated activity, methods and assumptions | Retain the review trace. |
| Public plan | Approved summary content and declaration | Check the actual generated file before publication. |
What should a comparable quotation and acceptance include?
Compare the demonstrated deliverables, implementation work and human review separately rather than an unsupported promise of tender success Participation assessment Assessment FAQ.
Module 01 / 04
Licence
Identify the report, data, review and export functions supplied.
Module 02 / 04
Setup
Specify template configuration, historical migration and training.
Module 03 / 04
Review service
Name any separately included technical or advisory work.
Module 04 / 04
Exit
Retain usable working files and a record of published versions.
Read the detailed guidance and evidence
CRPs are assessed against the requirements rather than scored against each other, so software should not market a lower footprint as an automatic bid advantage Questions 6–7.
The software guide, consultancy guide and standards overview help separate the wider platform and professional decisions.
How can the work be organised?
This nine-step sequence is an editorial workflow rather than a statutory timetable.
- 101
Save the request
Retain the specific tender question and policy version. - 202
Define the deliverables
Specify public plan, bid answer and internal evidence exports. - 303
Build the fixture
Include entity, missing-data, correction and publication errors. - 404
Test route selection
Inspect configuration changes and the human route decision. - 505
Trace the coverage
Follow the bidder, boundary and required category mappings. - 606
Correct the data
Observe the source replacement and its affected report fields. - 707
Challenge the narrative
Resolve an action-status discrepancy before publication. - 808
Inspect sign-off and URL
Compare the approved text with the actual published file. - 909
Agree the handover
Record support scope, access, exports and future update ownership.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask
Is CRP software a procurement requirement?
PPN 006 asks for the relevant plan and evidence rather than requiring a particular commercial software product.
Can an inventory dashboard be submitted as the plan?
Check the actual template and declaration requirements because an emissions dashboard does not by itself provide the complete plan response.
Should blank categories be treated as zero?
No, because a blank collection field does not establish no activity, and the demonstration should preserve the difference as an evidence-control decision.
Does software remove board approval?
No, because the Technical Standard specifies approval and named sign-off that the platform can support but cannot replace.
Must the footprint be independently audited?
The Technical Standard expressly says there is no requirement to have it audited, so independent assurance should be a separately defined engagement.
What is the most useful acceptance test?
Use the fictional post-review correction to inspect the source record, revised plan, human review and actual public file as one connected workflow.
Sources
Primary sources
Primary provisions and official owner guidance checked on 26 October 2026; historical and draft resources are labelled in the guide.
- Cabinet OfficePPN 006: policy, application and Annex A template
- Cabinet OfficePPN 006 document pack and downloadable template
- Cabinet OfficePPN 006 Technical Standard: boundaries, data and approval
- Cabinet OfficePPN 006 FAQ: contract valuation and assessment
- Cabinet OfficePPN 006: adopting and applying conditions of participation
- NHS EnglandCarbon reduction plan and net zero commitment requirements
- GHG ProtocolCorporate Standard, revised edition: Chapters 1, 3–7 and 9
- GHG ProtocolScope 3 Calculation Guidance: activity-specific methods
- DESNZ2026 conversion factors and July correction
- DESNZ2026 methodology: units, fuels and global warming potentials
- UK governmentEnvironmental Reporting Guidelines including SECR