When schools and trusts plan an ICT procurement, they are balancing value, technical fit, support, sustainability and the wider impact of the suppliers they choose. For many organisations, environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are already part of that picture.

For procurements covered by the Procurement Act 2023, contracting authorities must consider the importance of maximising public benefit. Under the Act, social, environmental and economic factors can form part of the award criteria where they relate to the contract and are clear, measurable and proportionate.

Trustees, governors, senior leaders, staff and pupils are also taking a closer interest in supply chains, waste and community impact, and in how procurement decisions reflect the values and priorities of their school or trust. For many schools and trusts, the next step is turning these expectations into relevant tender requirements that suppliers can address in their responses.

This article looks at how ESG considerations can be reflected in an ICT tender, from deciding what is relevant and how it should be evaluated through to setting minimum requirements and monitoring delivery after the contract is awarded.

Applying the three ESG pillars

The relevance of each ESG pillar will vary according to the products or services being procured, the size of the contract and the school or trust’s priorities. The following considerations provide a useful starting point for drafting tender criteria.

Environmental. Relevant considerations might include device energy performance, packaging and delivery waste, repairability, WEEE arrangements and end-of-life processes. Where appropriate, suppliers could also provide carbon information relating to their delivery of the contract, together with the method and reporting period used.

Social. This could cover workforce practices and labour standards, contract-related employment or training opportunities, digital inclusion and accessibility. Schools may wish to consider outcomes for their local community, provided the criteria allow suppliers from any location to respond fairly.

Governance. This pillar may include relevant accreditations or equivalent management systems, transparent reporting, escalation arrangements and supply-chain due diligence. For device procurements, it can also be useful to understand how much visibility a supplier has over the origin of key components and materials, and how related risks are managed.

Deciding how ESG will be evaluated

Giving ESG a defined place within the evaluation helps suppliers understand its importance and gives the evaluation panel a clear basis for comparing responses.

For example, an ICT tender might allocate 60% to quality, 30% to the commercial evaluation and 10% to relevant ESG considerations. Price and whole-life cost would sit within the commercial element, which can be evaluated separately after the quality and ESG scores have been finalised. ESG questions can focus on the supplier’s proposed approach, commitments and supporting evidence, without asking for pricing information. The appropriate weighting will depend on the contract, the supplier market and the school or trust’s priorities.

ESG questions and supporting evidence. Specific questions tend to produce more useful information than a broad request for an ESG policy or statement. For example: Please describe how you would minimise packaging and delivery waste under this contract, including the measures proposed, how progress would be monitored and any relevant evidence from comparable work.

A similar structure could be used for digital inclusion, carbon reduction or supply-chain due diligence. Relevant evidence could include accreditations or equivalent documentation, examples from comparable contracts and measurable outcomes from previous commitments. A clear word limit and attachment guidance can help keep responses focused and comparable.

Using the existing evaluation approach. ESG responses can be assessed using the same method as the rest of the tender. The question and evaluation guidance can identify the evidence expected, such as contract-specific commitments, measurable outcomes and examples from relevant work. This keeps ESG within the established evaluation process without introducing a separate scoring system.

Using pass or fail criteria for minimum requirements

Some ESG requirements may be more suitable for pass or fail assessment. This is generally the case where every supplier needs to meet the same baseline for its tender to be considered further. The requirement and the consequence of a failed response need to be clear within the tender documents and assessment methodology.

Other ESG criteria can be evaluated using the existing approach, taking account of the strength and supporting evidence of each supplier’s proposal.

Possible minimum requirements for an ICT contract might include:

• WEEE and end-of-life compliance. Relevant evidence may include registration details, the use of authorised waste carriers and treatment facilities, chain-of-custody records and asset-level disposal certificates. The evidence requested will depend on the supplier’s role in the process.
• Data sanitisation. Suppliers may be asked to provide a documented method aligned with recognised standards or guidance, together with sanitisation or data-destruction certificates for relevant assets.
• Environmental management. For contracts where it is proportionate, evidence could include current ISO 14001 certification or evidence of an equivalent environmental management system.

Example tender wording. The supplier must provide current evidence of [requirement], or equivalent, by the tender deadline. This requirement will be assessed on a Pass or Fail basis. A failed response will exclude the tender from further evaluation.

The purpose of each requirement will determine whether it sits within the technical specification, conditions of participation or award criteria, with equivalent evidence accepted where required.

Monitoring commitments after award

ESG commitments made during the tender process can be included in the contract schedule, giving the school and supplier a shared way to monitor delivery.

The examples below show how this could work in practice.

Area	Possible measure	Evidence	Review
Packaging	Recyclable packaging and progress against an agreed waste-reduction baseline	Delivery data and waste records	Quarterly
End of life	Collected assets supported by complete chain-of-custody and sanitisation records	Asset register and certificates	After each collection
Digital inclusion	Delivery against agreed sessions, placements or device contributions	Attendance and outcome records	Termly
Carbon	Reported emissions linked to contract delivery and progress against an agreed target	Agreed methodology and supporting data	Annually

An annual supplier sustainability report could summarise progress, measurable outcomes and any changes to certifications or supply-chain arrangements. Significant issues can be raised through regular contract reviews as they arise.

For trustees and governors, ESG performance can sit within existing reporting to the Resources or Finance Committee. A short summary could cover progress against the agreed measures, any issues, corrective action and decisions required. Keeping this with contract review records and committee minutes creates a clear evidence trail of oversight and delivery.

A reusable approach for future tenders

Developing the questions, evidence requirements, evaluation guidance and KPI schedule takes focused work the first time. Once in place, these elements can provide a useful starting point for future device, infrastructure and managed-service tenders, with the detail adapted to each contract and supplier market.

Everything ICT supports schools and MATs to develop clear requirements, engage suitable suppliers and run compliant ICT procurements with whole-life value in view. If ESG considerations are part of an upcoming tender, speak to our team about how they could be built into the process.