Social value shouldn’t be a by-product, it should be a community-driven one

I was asked at an industry event recently whether the built environment should overhaul how it delivers social value. Does the public sector need to be more involved? And can we even agree on what social value is?

People outside the construction industry see social value as delivering ‘good things’ for local communities. Creating meaningful social value enhances peoples’ wellbeing, whether that’s via a new community space, new social infrastructure or affordable homes. It’s about inclusion and shared prosperity, delivering things that will make local people happier and healthier.

However, social value’s cause is hindered by the built environment’s tendency to stick to narrow and formulaic definitions of what it is. Some developers give themselves a pat on the back for doing what they see as great social value work. Much of this is indeed useful – creating jobs, delivering training and so on – but it’s often brought about by being bolted onto something else, rather than being an inherently important component that is considered from the outset. In some of these activities, social value outputs from procurement are arguably being used to plug the gaps in what should – by rights – be delivered by the public sector.

If social value is being delivered merely as a by-product of private sector activity, rather than being properly funded and delivered by the public sector, it’s never going to be particularly coordinated or effective once the scheme has been delivered.

The industry often looks at social value through the wrong end of the telescope. Delivering on local aspirations shouldn’t be an inconvenience that accompanies a contract. Social value assessments should start with asking the question: ‘What does the community need?’. But in most cases these dots aren’t being joined up properly, because such a process takes time and effort.

Rather than the narrow definition embedded in the Social Value Act, we ought to use locally produced ‘community needs’ frameworks, which would see regeneration working to deliver what communities want, rather than to hit generic targets on creating apprenticeships or training places.

Ideally, there would be sufficient upfront engagement with communities in each neighbourhood to define locally what their needs and priorities are. This would help both property investors and local authorities to recognise and understand what help was needed.

With the right approach, there can be a weaving together of knowledge and experience that combines insight from the communities, the local authority and the developer. With the right moderation, those conversations can translate into something all parties can work with.

The delivery of a public asset can have a hugely positive impact on a local community. Take the newly built Britannia Leisure Centre in Hackney. The established path for considering the social value of that project via its procurement would consider elements such as local job creation in construction and design team contracts, yet the real social benefit stemmed from how it significantly boosted the health and wellbeing of the local community.

Similarly, formulaic approaches to overseeing social value delivery don’t recognise how revamping, say, a row of shops along a section of a high street, as we have done in Burnt Oak in north west London and in South Croydon, can boost community cohesion.

A ‘by-product’ approach to delivering social value misses the benefits a more tailored and nuanced approach can achieve. We need to spend more time – and money – upfront to ensure the intended outcomes of a project and its social value ambitions are both well-defined and realised. If more effort, resources, strategic thinking and engagement are deployed in the early stages, we can avoid using generic frameworks for understanding social valued and won’t have to fill in any gaps later on.

Some local authorities appreciate this. Others around the world get it, too. The powers-that-be in Copenhagen have published what they call the Co-Create programme, which makes the vital point that “the best city to live in is the one you can help create yourself”.

It’s clear that a better understanding of what social value is, who should be involved in its delivery and when it should be planned are all crucial to the better outcomes we want for our communities. So what are we waiting for?