The Social Value Act, first enacted in 2013, has long been praised—and sometimes quietly criticized—for its ambition to embed social benefit considerations into public procurement processes. For years, the legislation encouraged contracting authorities to look beyond price and technical merit, to consider how procurement decisions might contribute to broader community wellbeing. Yet, for all the goodwill the Act generated, many observers—economists and practitioners alike—felt that its implementation lacked consistency. The guidance, until recently, left too much room for interpretation, which in practice meant that measuring social impact became something of an afterthought, if it was attempted at all.
That began to shift in early 2019, when the U.K. government issued updated guidance designed to provide clearer expectations for public sector bodies and bidders alike. The new guidance, released that January, aimed to operationalize social value in a way that could be measured, compared, and reported upon with at least some degree of rigour. For bidders—particularly those managing complex supply chains—the change marked both an opportunity and a challenge. No longer could social-value claims remain vague aspirations. Instead, bidders were expected to provide tangible evidence of how their supply chains delivered benefits to local communities, whether through job creation, skills development, or other forms of socioeconomic contribution.
One of the most practical starting points lies in the use of open data, specifically labour-market data available through the Office for National Statistics. With the right approach, firms can map their suppliers—tier by tier—against regional employment data to demonstrate how their procurement choices support local labour markets. The process itself isn’t entirely straightforward. It demands that firms first develop an accurate picture of their supply chain structure. For many, this has meant investing in improved supplier-mapping tools or enhancing internal reporting processes so that subcontractor locations and headcounts are more visible. Only once that foundation is in place does the task of matching supplier footprints to community benefit metrics become feasible.
From there, bidders can begin constructing what has come to be called a social impact scorecard. The concept isn’t entirely new—scorecards have long been a feature of supply chain performance monitoring—but applying them specifically to social value adds a layer of complexity. The scorecard, at its core, seeks to quantify contributions across several dimensions. Local employment rates, apprenticeship opportunities, supplier diversity, and engagement with disadvantaged groups often feature prominently. The data sources are varied, but ONS datasets form a key part of the evidence base, helping bidders link supplier activities to local economic indicators in a defensible way.
Building the scorecard is, of course, only part of the task. Making it meaningful requires that bidders apply it consistently across projects and supply-chain tiers. This is where the updated guidance provides a clearer steer. Contracting authorities are increasingly looking for structured reporting—something more than generic statements about community benefit. As a result, bidders have started to formalize their reporting templates, creating annual social-value reports tailored to the needs of local councils. The templates typically include a narrative overview of the bidder’s social-value strategy, supported by data tables and charts that map out specific contributions over the reporting period.
The structure of such reports varies, but a few elements are becoming common practice. Most begin with a high-level summary of the firm’s overall social-value commitments, followed by a breakdown of outcomes achieved, often benchmarked against contractual targets. From there, the reports dive into the detail: numbers of local hires, hours of training delivered, contracts awarded to small or minority-owned businesses, and so on. Some firms choose to supplement the quantitative data with case studies or testimonials, hoping to bring the numbers to life. Whether that approach resonates with contracting authorities remains to be seen, but the attempt to humanize what can otherwise feel like a dry exercise is at least notable.
What’s striking in all this is how the measurement of social value, once seen as peripheral, is now becoming embedded in the mechanics of procurement. The shift isn’t without its tensions. Some suppliers worry, perhaps rightly, that the emphasis on quantification risks overshadowing the qualitative aspects of community engagement that are harder to measure but no less important. Others question whether the data being gathered—however well intentioned—is always fit for purpose. ONS labour-market data, while comprehensive, can sometimes lag behind real-time conditions or fail to capture the nuances of smaller local economies. Yet, in the absence of perfect data, firms are making do, building systems that can at least stand up to external scrutiny.
There’s also a broader question about alignment. As local councils interpret and apply the updated guidance, variations are emerging in how social-value contributions are weighted and assessed. This variability can make it challenging for national or multi-regional bidders to develop a single reporting framework that satisfies all audiences. Some have responded by creating modular reporting systems, where core elements remain consistent, but additional sections can be tailored to specific council priorities. It’s not a perfect solution, and in practice, it can add to reporting burdens. But in the current environment, flexibility is a necessary trade-off.
The Social Value Act’s journey from principle to practice continues, shaped by evolving guidance and by the efforts of firms willing to engage seriously with the challenge of measurement. Whether the emerging best practices are sufficient—or whether further regulatory tightening will follow—is a question that remains open.