The Hidden Impact of UK Social Value Reform: What You Need to Know

Your voice matters. Right now, significant changes to UK social value requirements are under consultation, and the proposals could fundamentally reshape how social value is delivered through public contracts.

The proposed changes create a concerning two-tier system. For contracts over £5 million, social value would become mandatory with a 10% weighting focused primarily on jobs and skills. Meanwhile, smaller contracts would revert to commissioners merely "considering" social value - potentially eliminating requirements entirely for thousands of contracts. This division disadvantages the VCSE sector while benefiting large corporations who can deliver at scale.

Mandatory reporting of social value KPIs sounds promising, but again only applies to high-value contracts. The push toward standardised metrics creates a troubling tick-box approach that narrows the scope of social value primarily to employability outcomes. These standardised numerical values further advantage large businesses who can promise greater volume, regardless of whether those interventions genuinely address community needs.

The location flexibility proposals aim to distribute social value more widely but may simply reshuffle where benefits are concentrated rather than ensuring equitable distribution. One potential bright spot exists in proposed changes to vulnerable citizens classifications, which could allow more quality-focused commissioning for social care services.

The consultation risks further gamifying an already flawed system, where impressive numbers trump meaningful impact. If you care about genuine community benefit and creating a level playing field for smaller organisations, now is the time to speak up. Review the consultation, submit your feedback, and help shape a social value framework that works for everyone - not just those with the deepest pockets.

You can find the consultation here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/public-procurement-growi

Welcome to Make an Impact podcast, where we dive deep into the stories, strategies, and solutions that drive real change. I'm Heidi Fisher and I work with organizations on a mission to tackle poverty, reduce health inequalities, and create lasting social impact. In each episode, I bring you inspiring conversations with change makers, social entrepreneurs, and thought leaders who are making a difference, whether you're looking to boost your impact measurement, learn from innovative projects or

Thank you for joining us on this episode of the Make an Impact podcast. I hope you found today's conversation as inspiring and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed the episode, please subscribe, leave a review, and share it with others who want to create positive change. You can connect with me on LinkedIn and learn more about my work at Makeanimpactcic.co.uk.

Until next time, let's keep making an impact in the world.

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Social Value Consultation
• 1:41 Mandatory Social Value Over £5m
• 3:07 Reporting and Accountability Issues
• 4:03 Standardised Metrics Problem
• 5:53 Location Flexibility Considerations
• 6:55 Vulnerable Citizens Classification
• 8:09 Call to Action for Feedback

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:37

A lot of you have a lot to say about social value. I want to bring to your attention the fact that there is currently a consultation and within that there are proposed changes around social value. So this is your opportunity to tell them what you don't like about social value the fact that it's been gamified, that the large numbers are benefiting corporates and businesses and being detrimental to social enterprises and the VCSE sector. The first proposed change is that social value will be mandatory on contracts over £5 million and there will be a weighting of 10% for social value in the term for social value in attendance. The social value criteria for those contracts over £5 million will relate to job skills and opportunities, so very much employability focus. My concerns here are that one, it's only for contracts over £5 million. It's mandatory. For a lot of VCSE organisations if they were to deliver the social value elements of those contracts, that would be too large a size contract for them to deliver. And also the fact that we're not including contracts under five million pounds is a huge concern, because there are lots and lots of contracts that size and the way it will work for contracts under five million pounds is they would fall back to the original social value act criteria where a commissioner is required to consider social value. This is a big concern because very often where commissioner considers social value, they deem it as not a particular contract. So so there will be no need to deliver social value under contract under 5 million, which is a real shame because we could see a huge amount of beneficial social value potentially.

Speaker 1: 2:32

The second proposed change is around the mandatory reporting of social value and a KPI metric within the contract. So this is a positive change in that there will be some accountability for delivering social value commitments that you've put in attendance. But the proposed change only applies to contracts under five million pounds. Again, we've got this two worlds a division where if your contract's under five million pounds, you can do what you want. You can put whatever you want in terms of social value in that, if they've included it within the tender, you can win your contract by showcasing the fantastic amount of social value you're going to deliver and then not deliver any of it. It's not a change. I don't think it's a good change if it doesn't apply to all contracts. If it only applies to those over five million, we're missing opportunities again.

Speaker 1: 3:28

The third proposed change is around the use of standardised metrics and criteria. So this will require the contracting authority to pick from what in effect is tick box or check box list of social value opportunities primarily related to job skills and opportunities. That essentially means it's about employability social value metrics. So for me this is too narrow in that we want to be able to have wider options for social value. If we give a 99% of the time simply going to pick from that list and not really think through what is the most beneficial social value for a particular community, and the fact that we are standardizing it and so using standardized numerical values for those social value commitments again will benefit larger corporates and businesses where they can put bigger volumes of social value deliverables into their tenders. So we've got this situation where SMEs and BCSE organisations would lose out because they simply can't deliver the scale of social value that a bigger organisation can do. And that is the current problem, and this and this to me would seem to just make it worse. It's meant to simplify the social value commitments so this is one of the explanations within the consultation and make it easier for SMEs and BCSEs to know what social value they're supposed to be delivering, but I'm not convinced that it's actually going to deliver. Do that?

Speaker 1: 5:13

The fourth proposed change is around the flexibility of where the social value is actually delivered. So this really does in some cases make sense, particularly where we've got central government departments are all located in London. We don't necessarily want the social value all to be delivered in that particular community or area. So there is the option to select to have the social value delivered where the contracting authority is based, where the contract is to be delivered or where the supplier is based. So those options will mean, hopefully, that social value will spread and be delivered in communities that have more need and be delivered in communities that have more need. But if you've got the same suppliers winning the contracts again, we're going to get a lot of social value delivered in particular communities. So there will still be an uneven spread. So I'm slightly indifferent about this proposed change. I'm not sure if it's beneficial or whether it's actually just going to shift social value to different areas and we're still going to have a similar problem that's concentrated in a particular area.

Speaker 1: 6:20

The final change is around what's classed as vulnerable citizens.

Speaker 1: 6:24

So there have been some issues with adults, social care services and with children's services, where a competitive tender process has meant that those particular services haven't necessarily been the best quality or the most impactful services.

Speaker 1: 6:41

So the proposed change is that they can commission those services without a full competitive tender process.

Speaker 1: 6:48

I think this is quite beneficial for VCSE organisations that can show that they actually can deliver really impactful, high-quality services. I also think there's an opportunity, which is mentioned in the consultation, to widen the scope of what is classed as a vulnerable citizen no-transcript thoughts around the proposed consultation. It really is up to you to share your views and perspectives. You may or may not agree with me, but I do think there is a risk with some of these proposed changes that we actually worsen the situation where we end up much more a tick box gamified system where the big numbers still win out. Because we're actually just shifting the scale and making it mandatory for contracts of a million pounds, we're not actually making it relevant for the community and we're not delivering the types of social value we know would be beneficial for communities beyond just employability and skills. So have a look at the consultation and do share your views. If you want to drop your thoughts in the comments, then please do that as well. Thank you.