Quick answer: Most public sector social value responses amount to little more than a local spend count and a vague promise about apprenticeships. That is not a strategy — it is a placeholder. Buyers need to ask harder questions, and suppliers need to offer more specific, measurable commitments.
---
The problem starts with the question
If you ask a woolly question, you get a woolly answer. A significant proportion of social value questions I have seen in tender documents still amount to: "Tell us about the social value you will deliver." That is an open invitation for suppliers to write whatever sounds good. And they do.
The result is a parade of near-identical responses citing local employment, supply chain spend within a radius, and the occasional mention of school visits. Evaluators dutifully score them. The winning bid includes a social value commitment that disappears quietly after contract award, because no one built in any mechanism to track it.
This is not procurement. It is theatre.
---
Local economic impact is an output, not a strategy
There is nothing wrong with local economic benefit as an outcome. Keeping money circulating in a local economy, supporting regional SMEs, creating employment opportunities — these are legitimate public goods. The Procurement Act 2023 and the wider social value agenda rightly expect buyers to consider them.
The problem is treating local spend as a strategy in itself. A supplier who says "70% of our supply chain is within 50 miles" has told you something about their current business model. They have told you almost nothing about what they will deliberately do differently on your contract, for whom, measured how, and verified by what.
That gap between a fact about a supplier and a commitment to a community is where most social value responses currently live. It is not good enough.
---
What a credible framework actually requires
A credible social value strategy has four components that most responses are missing at least two of.
Specificity. Not "we will create local jobs" but "we will recruit a minimum of two long-term unemployed people in your local authority area into paid roles within the first six months of contract, supported through the local employment partnership." The specificity is the commitment.
Proportionality. Social value expectations must be proportionate to contract size, duration, and the nature of the work. A £200,000 facilities contract cannot reasonably be expected to deliver a community wealth-building programme. Buyers who over-reach on social value requirements in low-value contracts waste everyone's time and deter capable suppliers.
Measurement. The Social Value Model provides a framework of themes, outcomes, and measures (TOMs) precisely so that commitments can be quantified and tracked. The Procurement Act 2023 reinforces the expectation that social value is evaluated, not just mentioned. If your social value section cannot be reduced to measurable deliverables with reporting milestones, it is not a strategy.
Accountability. Who reports, to whom, when, and what happens if delivery falls short? Most contracts I have reviewed are silent on all four questions. Social value commitments need to be written into contracts with the same discipline as any other performance obligation.
---
The supplier side of this problem
Suppliers are not entirely to blame for weak responses. They write what wins, and for years vague social value theatre won. The market learned accordingly.
But under the Procurement Act 2023, with greater emphasis on transparency and contract performance reporting, that is shifting. Buyers who are serious about social value are beginning to build in post-award monitoring. UKRPSS accreditation processes are pushing suppliers to evidence, not just assert. The tide is turning slowly, but it is turning.
Suppliers who want to differentiate themselves should stop competing on who can claim the largest local spend figure and start competing on the quality of their community commitments. That means knowing your supply chain well enough to make specific pledges. It means having relationships with local employment organisations, voluntary sector partners, or training providers that you can name. It means being prepared to be held to what you write.
---
The buyer's job is harder than writing the question
Commissioning genuine social value requires upfront investment in understanding what your community actually needs. Not what sounds good in a policy document — what the local labour market gaps are, what the voluntary sector is trying to achieve, what your anchor institution status means in practice for economic resilience in your area.
That intelligence should be shaping your specification and your evaluation criteria before the tender goes out, not being retrofitted after award.
---
Practical takeaway
Before your next procurement, spend thirty minutes with your social value requirements and ask: could a supplier deliver these commitments and still have done nothing meaningfully different from their normal business operations? If the answer is yes, your framework needs tightening before the ITT goes live.