Why Measurement Matters: Towards Meaningful Metrics in Social Value

Social value goes beyond good intentions and even beyond investment. It’s about measurable impact. It’s not about how many volunteering days you’ve spent and the ‘value’ (or cost) of those days, it’s about whether the result of the volunteering made a measurable difference to the environment, the economy or people’s lives. 

But how do we reach a point where we can measure that real impact?

The Problem with Metrics

You only have to read our How To guide on approaching social value measurement to see the plethora of methodologies, models, frameworks, standards and tools available. Many of them are based on the same underlying data to produce proxy values and state that they take inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts into account. However, this mix of measurement approaches causes problems. For example:

• Qualitative vs quantitative: Central government is guided by PPN002/25, which defines a Social Value Model with standard reporting metrics. These are assessed qualitatively during the bid phase and turned into KPIs in the contract but are not converted into financial or impact values. Conversely, local councils and housing associations typically  to either wholly or partially evaluate tenders qualitatively and may even include social value requirements to deliver/donate a specified amount of money. Quite a difference.  
• Proportionality and relevance: It’s a common question to ask if there are any guidelines as to the percentage of a contract value that should be delivered as social value. Figures get bandied around, but there is nothing hard and fast.  Without a well-informed and well-articulated social value ‘ask,’ suppliers are stabbing in the dark as to what level of social value is proportionate and relevant. 
• Value vs investment: Over the past couple of years, we’ve seen reports from companies proudly stating they have delivered £xm of social value, but they are actually reporting the amount of money they have invested/donated in rather than the value or impact they have delivered.
• Action vs degree of impact:  Employing a number of local apprentices counts as a social value contribution towards the local economy and towards enhancing skills, but the impact on someone from a disadvantaged background would be far greater. Volunteering ‘n’ hours tidying up a local park counts as a social value contribution, but the impact would be far greater if the park were in a run-down inner-city area. Not all models cater for these differences.

Towards standardisation and away from commercialisation

Coping with the different measurement approaches taken by different buyers is a constant headache for suppliers. The TOM System one day, Thrive the next, Loop the next, and so on. The list is endless. And then there’s the question of which tool to use internally to track your own social value commitments and impacts across multiple contracts – it might be aligned with some clients, but it won’t align with all, thus creating a mismatch and a burden.

Hence, as with previous feedback from surveys and polls by the APMP UK Social Value Group, there is still a strong appetite for one approach. A simplified, contextualised framework that offers flexibility to cater for different sizes and profiles of procurement projects across different industries and supports contract-specific and community-specific needs. It should track commitments, promote self-accountability and support streamlined KPIs. And it should be politically agnostic, perhaps extending to a BS or ISO standard, as long as that doesn’t degrade social value to a box-ticking, compliance exercise.

To achieve a single approach will take effort and willpower from the whole social value ‘industry’ – buyers and suppliers working together - and may indeed face hostility from those who run profitable businesses based on proprietary models and tools. But surely the whole point of social value is to work together beyond routine corporate objectives to make our world a better place?   

Where next?

We sense a tide of desire to crack the impact challenge. It’s a constant topic and we hope that new entrants and emerging talent will really influence a step-change.  

As for standardisation vs more choice, we see the discussion continuing and doubt it will be resolved anytime soon, even though the recent government consultation touched on the subject. We await the outcome with interest.

Our role as bid professionals is to continue providing feedback to policymakers and influencers, and to be influencers ourselves through active participation and collaboration. Such is the role of the Social Value Group, but we hope all APMP UK members will pitch in at appropriate forums to make our voices heard and help drive the movement for social value impact forward.

‍

This blog is based on output from the Social Value Measurement and Impact Roundtable team at the APMP UK Social Value Roadshow on 18^th September 2025.

‍