Content uploaded by Alex Opoku
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alex Opoku on Mar 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Social Value Act 2012:
current state of practice in the
social housing sector
Alex Opoku
UCL Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management,
University College London, London, UK, and
Peter Guthrie
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The social housing sector is under increasing pressure to do more with less and provide value for
money as part of the UK Government’s public debt reduction strategy. This study aims to explore the current
practices towards unlocking social value in the housing sector through the adoption of the Social Value Act
2012. The Social Value Act seeks to ensure that public sector procurement deliver added value in terms of
social, economic and environmental outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach –The study adopts quantitative research methodology through a
survey with 100 housing professionals charged with the delivery of social value outcomes in the social
housing sector in England.
Findings –The results of the study reveal that there is a low level of understanding of the Social Value Act
2012 among the professionals in the social housing sector. Once again, most organisations in the social
housing sector do not have social value strategies or policies and rarely consider social value outcomes during
procurement. However, employment skills and training and crime and antisocial behaviour reduction are the
most social value priority outcomes/needs identified with organisations currently promoting social value in
the social housing sector.
Social implications –The issue of social value has importance towards the wider society, and the study
provides an insight into current practices towards the realisation of social value outcomes in the housing
sector.
Originality/value –The Social Value Act 2012 came into force in January 2013, and little has been written
on the impact of the Act on the social housing sector in England. This study identifies current practices in the
social housing sector towards the delivery of social value outcomes in the day-to-day business operations.
Keywords UK, Value for money, England, Housing sector, Social value, Social Value Act 2012
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The UK Government is currently cutting down public subsidy to the social housing
sector, and also, it is demanding the true value of their programmes to justify continued
funding support from the public purse. Value has been defined to include economic, socio-
cultural, political and environmental benefits beyond the delivery of the core services
(National Health Service-NHS, 2015). Value for money (VFM) is an issue of growing
concern across the housing sector and this requires a better understanding of
performance improvement of the housing assets ( Jones and Wilson, 2014). Sustainable
procurement processes are important in promoting good performance and VFM culture
in the housing sector when delivering housing products. The housing sector is required to
Social Value
Act 2012
253
Received 20 November2016
Revised 3 February2017
8 March 2017
Accepted 10 March2017
Journal of Facilities Management
Vol. 16 No. 3, 2018
pp. 253-268
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1472-5967
DOI 10.1108/JFM-11-2016-0049
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
deliver substantial value beyond the development of new housing products (Johnson and
Sommariva, 2012). However, prior to the introduction of the Social Value Act 2012, the
social housing sector has long been committed to investment programmes that contribute
to positive social impact on the communities they operate; there is a growing recognition
that housing providers should ensure significant contribution to social value creation
when measuring VFM (Trotter et al., 2014).
It is believed that organisations that position social value at the heart of its operations are
competitive and successful in the society (Harlock, 2014). Through the creation of social
value, the housing sector and affordable housing providers have the opportunity to make
additional positive impact on the communities they operate, through improved maintenance
work, working with local contractors, businesses, schools and the adoption of sustainable
procurement options (National Federation of Arm’s Length Management Organisations-
ALMOs, 2013). Social value principles mean scarce resources are well allocated and the
valuation of contracts should go beyond the price, to seek the wider benefits to the
community (Duncan and Thomas, 2012). This paper aims at exploring the current state of
practice towards the creation of social value in the social housing sector following the
introduction of the Social Value Act 2012. The paper begins with a review of relevant
literature on social value, the Social Value Act 2012 and the possible implications on the
housing sector. The second section presents the adopted research approach and the research
findings. The final part of the paper is devoted to the research conclusions and the
implications of the study on the housing sector.
2. Unlocking social value
There is no single definition of social value and Temple et al. (2014) argue that, defining
social value is as difficult as delivering and measuring it. However, social value is believed
to involve the recognition of the importance of social, environmental and economic impacts
on the community and the people living in these communities. Common among the many
definitions of social value is that of the sustainable procurement task force, which defines
social value as “a process whereby organisations meet their need for goods, services, works
and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life basis, in terms of
generating benefits to the society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to the
environment”(Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-DEFRA, 2006, p. 10).
Harlock (2014) however defines social value as the additional environmental, social and
economic benefits to the communities of operation above and beyond the delivery of the
primary service. Creating social value should improve the lives of people in our
communities; provide career and skills development opportunities as well as making
positive contribution to the environment. The term social value has been used to describe
the additional value created such as employment opportunities in the delivery of the
primary service or activity with a wider impact/benefit to communities of operation and the
society as a whole (Compact Voice, 2014). Social value includes the additional environmental
and economic benefits achieved and not just the social impacts. Environmental impacts
include the reduction of pollution, reducing waste and energy savings while the economic
impacts involve apprenticeship opportunities, skills training, use of local suppliers and
employment. Temple et al. (2014) argue that there are four steps to unlocking social value as
illustrated in Figure 1.
The social value framework is a practical approach to help practitioners define expected
social value outcomes and understand how to successfully integrate it across the whole
business, partner with relevant stakeholders for delivery, and more importantly, how to
JFM
16,3
254
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
measure the difference created as a result of the implementation of the social value policies/
strategies.
2.1 The Social Value Act 2012
There is call for housing associations (HAs) to robustly pursue the VFM agenda to drive
down costs, and this is resulting in the need to adopt new funding models (Chevin, 2013).
The Social Value Act 2012 for public services was passed in February 2012 and came into
force in January 2013. The Act which is administered by the UK Cabinet Office provides the
statutory requirement for all public authorities to consider economic, social and
environmental impact of procurement decisions on public service contracts (Cabinet Office,
2012). The Act applies to all contracts above the Official Journal of the European
Community procurement thresholds of the 2006 Public Contracts regulations (Compact
Voice, 2014) and affects all local authorities (LAs), government departments, NHS trusts and
agencies (including clinical commissioning groups), fire and rescue services, HAs and police
services in England (Cunningham, 2012). Even though the Social Value Act is not
mandatory for the private sector, there is an increasing interest in the adoption of social
value because of the business benefits and the direct impact on profits because of the
reputation as a “social friendly”organisation (Tomlins, 2015).
The Social Value Act 2012 has been a game changer requiring public sector
organisations to consider how procurement decisions will secure improvements to the
economic, social and environmental well-being of society. These considerations should be an
integral part of any procurement process and not just an “add-on”. To create social value
when commissioning for services, decisions should not be based on only the price of a
service but also what added value/benefit that should be produced by the service (Arvidson
and Kara, 2013).
A recent study by the Cabinet Office (2015) identified the main challenges affecting the
adoption of the Social Value Act of 2012 in the public sector; awareness of the act among
public sector organisations is mixed with varying understanding on its practical application
and lack of a fully developed measurement tool for social value. The adoption of the Social
Value Act discourages the lowest price approach to procurement which could not deliver an
enhanced VFM throughout the life cycle of the contract (Arvidson and Kara, 2013).
2.2 Delivering social value
As part of the transformation required, the public sector is key in the delivery of best value
to meet the needs of the local communities. Arvidson and Kara (2013) argue that the Social
Value Act 2012 has been made more difficult to implement because of the problem of
defining what social value means and that public sector procurement commissioners are
finding it hard to really focus on social value outcomes because of the competing goals and
priorities.
To fully create social value in the public sector, the economic, environmental and social
benefits should be considered throughout the procurement process of pre-procurement,
Figure 1.
The social value
framework
Define
Define the vision
Integrate
Integrate across
the business
Partner
Deliver through
partnership
Measure
Measure the impact
Source: Temple et al. (2014)
Social Value
Act 2012
255
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
selection, contract award, contract conditions and management (Wood and Leighton, 2010).
At the pre-procurement stage, considerations should be given to social benefits in tender
specifications, while the award of contract should be based on social considerations to
determine the most economically beneficial tender that offers the best VFM. In addition,
contractual clauses on social issues such the provision of employment opportunities for the
local people could be included in the contract conditions as part of the performance
indicators. Defining what social value means and providing evidence that such value can be
created should be at the heart of procurement and commissioning (Arvidson and Kara,
2013). From the pre-tender stage, through the evaluation process to the contract
management stage, the right processes/systems should be put in place to ensure that social
value is achieved at the end of the procurement process. The specification and contract
tenders should be designed with added value in mind (Stephens, 2016).
2.3 Creating social value in the housing sector
Recent government policy change and spending cuts are impacting on the social housing
sector (Chevin, 2013). There is greater pressure on housing providers in England and Wales
to create social value outcomes when commissioning public contracts (Tomlins, 2015).
Duncan and Thomas (2012) however argue that HAs are in a better position to adopt the
Social Value Act. Housing providers are better positioned to drive the realisation of social
value through project delivery due to the huge purchasing power and the opportunity to
work with contractors and the supply chain. However, housing providers are historically
known for providing financial support for tenants, learning and skills training and
supporting tenants back into work. Social value is widely been used as a tool for
accountability, performance improvement and gaining business advantage by housing
providers; however quantifying the value created has always been a problem (Tomlins,
2015).
The Social Value Act 2012 is encouraging housing providers to create and deliver social
value outcomes as part of their strategic vision. When housing providers create social value
outcomes such as employment, it benefits the state as there is reduced claim on state
benefits. Also the cash flow of social housing providers’are improved because tenants are
not likely to get into rent arrears when in employment (Arena Partnership, 2015). In a
quantitative survey study by Temple et al. (2014) involving 77 LAs and 123 HAs, 80 percent
of respondents rated employment and job creation as a key local social value priority
outcome followed by youth employment, training and volunteering. The study further
highlights the enhanced community relationship achieved by HAs and LAs through the
delivery of social value outcomes.
The Social Value Act 2012 is changing the procurement practices in the affordable
housing sector by prioritising social considerations and well-being over lowest cost in
reviewing service contracts (Compact Voice, 2014). Desired local social value outcomes are
identified and defined to help in measuring priorities that meet the local objectives. All
contractual agreements with service providers should consider economic, social and
environmental benefits as part of the service specifications. Social value priorities and
outcomes differ from project to project and community to community. Some of the common
social value priorities/outcomes delivered in the social housing sector are as follows:
equality and diversity;
apprenticeship and youth activities;
increased local skills base;
opportunities for unemployed young people;
JFM
16,3
256
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
increased physical activity;
improved physical environment;
employment skills and training;
financial resilience;
community projects;
digital inclusion;
improving local environments;
use of local businesses;
environmental improvements;
training and employability;
community health and well-being;
social integration;
community cohesion;
volunteering;
crime and ASB reduction;
youth activities;
energy savings;
fair and ethical trade; and
employment opportunities for disabled people (ALMOs, 2013;Arvidson and Kara,
2013;HM Government, 2014;Temple et al., 2014).
It is a common practice for most housing providers to employ people from the community of
operation; to provide work-based health promotions to staff; to promote community unity
and cohesion aimed at reducing crime; to undertake neighbourhood improvement projects;
to provide energy efficiency advice for tenants; to provide apprenticeship opportunities; to
provide career advice in local schools; and to volunteer opportunities for staff (HM
Government, 2014).
2.4 Measuring social value in the housing sector
Social value is now a hot topic in the social housing sector and housing providers are
developing methods to best capture the value of the work done; this could be the “payback”
on investment in individual projects or the wider project impacts on the residents,
communities and the society. Understanding, capturing and measuring social value in the
housing sector is a good decision support mechanism for the investment choices (ALMOs,
2013). Contractors are now required to demonstrate how they can bring enhanced social
value to their projects during the procurement process. This may take the form of hiring
construction apprentices; the use of recycled or environmentally friendly raw materials and
products; the use of local contractors/suppliers; community consultation to ensure that the
project meets local needs; and to celebrate the project completion through community
events.
Quantifying or measuring social value continues to be a big challenge for the
implementation of social value in the housing sector, hence the call to develop new
techniques for measuring social return on investment (Temple et al.,2014;Chevin, 2013). A
number of methods/approaches have however been used in the housing sector to measure
Social Value
Act 2012
257
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
social value outcomes known as the social return on investment (SROI) or social audit; the
use of proxy values to give a typical value for certain benefits; environmental scanning;
community impact analysis; customer and stakeholder involvement; local economic benefits
(LM3); and cost benefit analysis (Trotter et al.,2014;Harlock, 2014;Arena Partnership,
2015). In view of the Social Value Act 2012, the affordable housing sector is required to show
the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of project delivery by integrating
social value outcomes across all departments/sections of the business. Public sector
organisations are required to measure the impact of their procurement activities on the
wellbeing of individuals, families and local communities, in terms of employment, health,
education and economic regeneration when procuring goods, services and works. The
provision of new homes for the community enhances the health, confidence, pride and
general well-being of residents and the wider community.
3. Research methodology
Quantitative research methodology is based on positivism philosophical stance which
believes in objective reality and that the phenomena under investigation should be observed
and described from an objective perspective (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006;Creswell, 2009;
Opoku et al., 2016). The researcher’s philosophical stance helped to define the choice of the
most appropriate data collection technique; however, Opoku et al. (2016) argue that
irrespective of the adopted research methodology, data collection technique used must be
suitable for collecting enough data that will help achieve the research objectives. The study
therefore adopts the use of quantitative research methodology using questionnaire for data
collection; the questionnaire offers flexibility in design which is relatively cheap and easy to
administer (Bryman, 2012). The use of quantitative methodology for the study is because of
the exploratory nature of the research and the aim to cover a wider population in the study.
The study aimed at capturing and providing an insight into the level of acceptance of the
Social Value Act 2012 in the social housing sector in England since it came into force in 2013.
This research therefore adopted electronic method in its questionnaire design,
distribution and subsequent data collection processes. A Web-based survey was designed
using SurveyGizmo software package which is used for creating online surveys,
questionnaires and forms and allows the user to capture and analyse any type of
quantitative data. A survey link was sent to a total of 100 housing professionals consisting
of 50 each from HAs and LAs in England. The sample was drawn from social housing
providers operating in England alone due to the exploratory nature of this study and the
resource constrains. The choice of 100 survey participants was deemed enough to provide
reasonable data for analysis and good overview of the current state of practice across the
UK. Professionals involved in the study include: asset managers, directors, business
development managers and property services managers/directors charged with the delivery
of social housing in England. The survey participants were randomly selected from the 2016
list of registered social housing providers available at the UK Government website. The
questionnaire for this study was divided into the following two main sections for easy
analysis and reporting: section one covers general information; and section two addresses
the key research questions of the study. To increase the response rate of the survey,
respondents were contacted by telephone to obtain personal emails before sending the
surveys out; follow-up email reminders were sent three weeks after the initial distribution.
4. Data analysis and discussion
Data from the survey were analysed using the standard statistical package for the social
sciences (SPSS version 24) and Microsoft Excel software. This was used to examine any
JFM
16,3
258
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
cross-tabulation, associations or groupings emerging from the survey data through factor
and coding analysis. Descriptive statistics involving the use of percentages, frequencies and
mean techniques were used for analysing data related to the characteristics of the
respondents and their organisation. Graphical techniques used in presenting the results
from these analyses included pie chart, bar chart and tables. Inferential statistical
techniques were also used to help determine if the sample represents the population or
whether there are differences between two or more groups or if there is a relationship
between two or more of the variables (O’Leary, 2005). An analysis of the data shows that a
response rate of 58 per cent was achieved representing 58 responses out of 100
questionnaires sent. This result can be considered as good compared with an average
response rate of 48.3 per cent for a Web-based survey (Archer, 2008).
The results of the survey show that, 64 per cent of respondents are from HAs, with the
remaining 36 per cent coming from LAs in the English social housing sector. This means
that less than half of the sample population that participated in the study are from LAs
providing social housing in England. The respondents’organisations range from small to
large in terms of employee size but more than half of the respondents were situated in large
size organisations (having over 250 employees); this represents 65 per cent of the total
respondents. Medium size organisations (250 or less employees) form 26 per cent, with 9 per
cent belonging to small size organisations employing up to 50 employees.
There were varied level of job titles when it comes to housing professionals charged with
the delivery of social value in the social housing sector. Respondents who describe their
current job title as Property Services Manager/Director represents 24 per cent of
respondents with 18 per cent of respondents being “Business Development Managers”.
However, as much as 36 per cent of respondents describe their job title as “other”. These
respondents have job titles such as social value business lead, information manager,
sustainability manager, energy and sustainability coordinator and head of community
engagement.
To establish respondents’level of understanding and knowledge of the Social Value Act
2012, respondents were asked to rate their understanding/knowledge from a scale of “In-
depth knowledge”to a level of “No understanding”. The result is surprising with 12 per cent
of respondents having in-depth knowledge and another 12 per cent with no understanding
of the Social Value Act 2012 at all. The Social Value Act 2012 has been into force for four
years (2013-2017), and the findings reveal that 28 per cent of respondents are “Reasonably
well informed”, but only36 per cent of respondents have just “basic understanding”of the
Act. Details and graphical representation of the findings and the breakdown according to
the organisational type are illustrated in Figure 2. Out of the 28 per cent of respondents with
“Reasonably well informed”level of knowledge/understanding of the Act, 12 per cent are
from HAs and 16 per cent from LAs. However, when it comes to the breakdown of
respondents with just a “basic understanding”of the Social Value Act 2012, 26 per cent are
from the HAs and 10 per cent from LAs.
Respondents were asked how often their organisations consider the Social Value Act
2012 since it came to force in January 2013, and the results are mixed with 33 per cent of
respondents considering the Act “all the time”during procurement. Also 38 per cent of
the respondents consider the Act “some of the time”, 19 per cent occasionally, but 10 per cent
of respondents never considered the Social Value Act 2012 in their organisational
procurement process at all. It is however important to note that HAs consider the act more
often than the LAs; a total of 26 per cent of the HA considered the act and only 7 per cent of
LAs considered the Social Value Act. The detailed breakdown for the two organisations
Social Value
Act 2012
259
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
providing social housing in England and how often the Social Value Act 2012 is considered
during procurement is shown in Figure 3.
To ascertain if social housing providers and for that matter public sector organisations
have developed social value policies/strategies since the act came into force in January 2013,
the result was the same for both organisations with social value policies/strategies and those
without at 35 per cent each. In addition, 18 per cent are now developing social value policies/
strategies four years down the line since the act came into force. The detail result is
illustrated graphically in Figure 4.
Again respondents were provided with a list of methods/approaches for measuring social
value outcomes established through literature review (Trotter et al.,2014;Harlock, 2014;
Arena Partnership, 2015), and the statistical mean and standard deviation of the results are
presented in Table I. In line with findings from the literature, the respondents rated “Social
return on investment (SROI)”as the most commonly used method for measuring social
value outcomes/needs with a mean score of 0.64. The second most commonly used
approach/method was the “community impact analysis”with a mean value of 0.43, followed
by the “Local economic benefits”with a mean value of 0.26. However, the “use of proxy
values”was the least used approach/method for measuring social value needs/outcomes by
Figure 4.
Social housing
providers currently
having social value
policy/strategy
Table I.
Respondents score of
methods of
measuring social
value outcomes
Statistics
SROI Social audit
The use of
proxy values
Cost benefit
analysis LM3
Community
impact analysis
N
Valid 58 58 58 58 58 58
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 0.64 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.26 0.43
SD 0.485 0.329 0.307 0.421 0.442 0.500
Social Value
Act 2012
261
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
the respondents with a mean of 0.10. These results show the level of importance social
housing provider organisations put on the local communities of operation.
To identify social value needs/outcomes that social housing providers have delivered
since the introduction of the Social Value Act 2012, respondents were finally asked to rate
social value outcomes/needs identified through the literature review (ALMOs, 2013;
Arvidson and Kara, 2013;HM Government, 2014;Temple et al., 2014). The statistical mean
and standard deviation of the analysis of results are presented in Table II.
The survey results indicate that, one of the most important social value need/outcomes
delivered by social housing providers is “Employment skills and training”with a mean of
0.79, followed by “Crime and anti-social behaviour reduction”as the next most important
outcome/need with a mean value of 0.72. However, it can be seen that the “Employment
creation”,“Local Apprenticeship”and “Community improvement projects”rated third,
fourth and fifth most important social value outcomes/needs, respectively, with a mean
value of 0.69, 0.50 and 0.47, respectively. The choice of social value outcome is mainly based
on the needs of the local communities in which these organisations operate. It is therefore
apparent from the findings that employment- and crime-related issues are important to both
social housing providers and the local communities.
The Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test was used to explore significant differences between
the two social housing provider organisations (HAs and LAs) and their response to the
survey by comparing the mean scores. The top five most important delivered social value
outcomes/needs identified in the descriptive analysis were “Employment skills and
training”,“Crime and anti-social behaviour reduction”,“Employment creation”,“Local
Apprenticeship”and “Community improvement projects”. The results of the Kruskal–
Wallis one-way ANOVA test for a K-Independent sample showing the five most important
delivered social value outcomes/needs are presented in Table III. The key information from
the output of the analysis were; the chi-square value, the degrees of freedom (df) and the
significance level (Asymp. Sig).
The result from the above shows that there was no statistically significant difference
between the type of social housing provider and the delivered social value outcomes/
needs with Kruskal–Wallis test of (H (1) = 0.535, p= 0.465) for “Crime and anti-social
behaviour reduction”; (H (1) = 3.065, p= 0.080) for “Community improvement projects”;
(H (1) = 0.053, p=0.818)for“Employment skills and training”;(H(1)=0.073,p= 0.787)
for “Local apprenticeship”; and (H (1) = 0.092, p= 0.762) for “Employment creation”.At
the significant level of
a
= 0.01, there exists a strong evidence to conclude that there is no
difference between the two organisational types (HAs and LAs) classified in the survey
Table II.
Respondents score of
delivered social value
outcomes/needs
Social value needs/outcomes NSum Mean SD
Employment creation 58 40 0.69 0.467
Equality and diversity 58 21 0.36 0.485
Local apprenticeship 58 29 0.50 0.504
Employment skills and training 58 46 0.79 0.409
Community improvement projects 58 27 0.47 0.503
Improved local environments 58 12 0.21 0.409
Use of local businesses 58 13 0.22 0.421
Health and well-being 58 5 0.09 0.283
Volunteering 58 9 0.16 0.365
Crime and antisocial behaviour reduction 58 42 0.72 0.451
Valid N58
JFM
16,3
262
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
based on the test scores. There was therefore no statistical difference in delivered social
value outcomes/needs across the social housing providers identified in the UK housing
sector. As a result, it can be asserted that, social housing provider are driven by the same
factors when it comes to priority social value outcomes/needs to be delivered irrespective
of the type of organisation.
In addition, a correlation was performed to determine the relationship between the top
five most important delivered social value outcomes/needs from the mean scores and the
result was varied. The result which is presented in Table IV show a significant correlation
between “employment creation”and “Crime and anti-social behaviour reduction”(rs = 0.336,
p= 0.010, two-tailed); “employment creation”and “employment skills and training”(rs =
0.485, p= 0.000, two-tailed) and “employment skills and training”and “Crime and anti-social
behaviour reduction”(rs = 0.447, p= 0.000, two-tailed). However, there was no significant
correlation between confidences in rest of the top five important delivered social outcomes/
needs.
The study shows that despite the introduction of the Social Value Act 2012, compliance
level in the housing sector is still low. The level of understanding the Social Value Act 2012
among professionals in the housing sector is not encouraging at all; a total of 12 per cent of
respondents have no understanding of the Act which is supposed to enhance VFM in the
public sector.
Social housing sector organisations are not considering the delivery of social value
outcomes/needs in their organisations’procurement process, as much as 10 per cent of
respondents’organisations never consider social value outcomes/needs in the delivery of
social housing projects. HAs and LAs should be encouraged to integrate social value
through contracts in the procurement of goods and services.
It is surprising to know that as much as 35 per cent of respondents’organisations do
not have social value policies/strategies to guide such organisations in the
implementation of the Social Value Act 2012. However, it did not come as a surprise from
the survey result that SROI is the most commonly used method/approach for measuring
social value outcomes/needs in the social housing sector. The SROI methodology is well-
known in the public sector for measuring and accounting for VFM by using monetary
values to represent social, environmental and economic outcomes and benefits of the
organisations’activities. The study shows that employment skills and training, crime
and antisocial behaviour reduction, employment creation, local apprenticeship and
community improvement projects are social value priority outcomes/needs mostly
delivered in the social housing sector in England.
Table III.
Kruskal–Wallis
ANOVA test of
priority social value
outcomes on type of
social housing
provider
Test statistics
a,b
Crime and
antisocial behaviour
reduction
Community
improvement
projects
Employment
skills and
training
Local
apprenticeship
Employment
creation
Chi-square 0.535 3.065 0.053 0.073 0.092
df 1 1111
Asymp.
Significance 0.465 0.080 0.818 0.787 0.762
Notes:
a
Kruskal–Wallis test;
b
grouping variable: type of social housing provider
Social Value
Act 2012
263
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
Correlations
Employment
creation
Local
apprenticeship
Employment
skills and
training
Community
improvement
projects
Crime and antisocial
behaviour reduction
Spearman’s rho
Employment creation
Correlation
coefficient 1.000 0.149 0.485** 0.252 0.336**
Significance
(two-tailed) 0.264 0.000 0.056 0.010
N58 58 58 58 58
Local apprenticeship
Correlation
coefficient 0.149 1.000 0.085 0.035 0.154
Significance
(two-tailed) 0.264 0.525 0.797 0.247
N58 58 58 58 58
Employment skills and training
Correlation
coefficient 0.485** 0.085 1.000 0.221 0.447**
Significance
(two-tailed) 0.000 0.525 0.096 0.000
N58 58 58 58 58
(continued)
Table IV.
Correlation of top
five most important
social value
outcomes/needs
JFM
16,3
264
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
Correlations
Employment
creation
Local
apprenticeship
Employment
skills and
training
Community
improvement
projects
Crime and antisocial
behaviour reduction
Community improvement projects
Correlation
coefficient 0.252 0.035 0.221 1.000 0.035
Significance
(two-tailed) 0.056 0.797 0.096 0.796
N58 58 58 58 58
Crime and antisocial behaviour reduction
Correlation
coefficient 0.336** 0.154 0.447** 0.035 1.000
Significance
(two-tailed) 0.010 0.247 0.000 0.796
N58 58 58 58 58
Note:
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Table IV.
Social Value
Act 2012
265
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
5. Conclusions
In an era where the public sector is required to deliver more with less, social housing
providers are required to provide VFM during all procurement processes to receive further
funding support from the UK Government. At the heart of achieving VFM is the expectation
that social housing providers create social value outcomes in the delivery of social housing.
The Social Value Act 2012 which came into force in January 2013 is applicable to all public
sector organisations and are required to consider economic, social and environmental impact
in all procurement decisions for the well-being of society. Defining and measuring social
value is difficult; however, social value has been described as the additional value created in
the delivery of the primary service that has a wider impact on society, especially in the
communities of operation. As part of the efforts by public sector organisations to measure
the social, economic and environmental impact of their procurement activities on the
wellbeing of society, SROI is the most commonly used approach/method when measuring
social value outcomes/needs.
The study shows that the level of understanding of the Social Value Act 2012 in the
social housing sector in England is low with only 12 per cent of professionals charged with
the responsibility to embed social value outcomes having in-depth understanding of the Act.
Additionally, another 12 per cent of the respondents have no understanding of the Social
Value Act 2012 at all. Once again, the results show that some social housing sector
organisations never consider social value outcomes/needs in the delivery of social housing
projects; however, about one-third (35 per cent) of the respondents consider social value
outcomes all the time during the procurement process. Many of the respondents’
organisations in the social housing sector in England do not have social value strategy or
policy to help with the implementation of the social value outcomes/needs. In practice,
employment skills and training and crime and antisocial behaviour reduction are the top
two most social value priority outcomes/needs identified in the social housing sector. This is
a clear evidence of how the Social Value Act 2012 could help tackle some of the societal
problems in the UK if the Act is enforced. Public sector organisations can provide
opportunities for the citizens in the community of operation by adopting the Social Value
Act 2012 in the procurement process.
The study could help social housing providers in attempt to implement programmes
that can contribute to the creation of social value outcomes. To improve the
implementation of the Social Value Act 2012 in the social housing sector, organisations
should evaluate contract proposals on the basis of social value creation and not just on
the lowest tender price. The social housing sector has the purchasing power to make a
significant contribution in delivering social value outcomes if the right leadership
direction is provided to embed social value outcomes in the planning, budgeting and
reporting processes of all social housing projects and programmes. It is recommended
that a further study involving qualitative data collection should be conducted to help
capture social housing professionals’opinions and reasons underpinning the results of
this study.
References
ALMOs (2013), Social Value: Long-Term Benefits of ALMOs Work, NFA Best Practice Guide, Issue 6 –
February 2013, National Federation of Arm’s Length Management Organisations (ALMOs),
Coventry.
Archer, T.M. (2008), “Response rates to expect from web-based surveys and what to do about it”,
Journal of Extension, Vol. 46 No. 3, available at: www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php (accessed 10
November 2016).
JFM
16,3
266
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
Arena Partnership (2015), 5 Minute Guide to Social Value: What it means for the UK Social Housing
Sector, Arena Partnership, Norfolk, available at: www.arenapartnership.co.uk
Arvidson, M. and and Kara, H. (2013), “Putting evaluations to use: from measuring to endorsing social
value”, Working Paper 110, Third Sector Research Centre, Birmingham.
Bryman, A. (2012), Social Research Methods, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cabinet Office (2012), “The public services (social value) act 2012-advice for commissioners and procurers:
cabinet office procurement policy note information note 10/12 20th December 2012”, available at:
https://update.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/public-procurementnote, (accessed 15 November
2016).
Cabinet Office (2015), “Social value act review report”, The Cabinet Office, London, available at: www.
gov.uk/government/.../Social_Value_Act_review_report_150212.pdf (accessed 15 November
2016).
Chevin, D. (2013), Social Hearted, Commercially Minded a Report on Tomorrow’s Housing Associations,
The Smith Institute, London.
Compact Voice (2014), “Understanding social value: a guide for local compacts and the voluntary
sector”, available at: www.compActvoice.org.uk/sites/default/files/social_value_guidance_2014.
pdf, (accessed 3 December 2015).
Creswell, J.W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach,4th
edition, SAGE Publications, London.
Cunningham, S. (2012), Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, Briefing Paper, National Housing
Federation, London.
DEFRA (2006), Procuring the Future, Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan:
Recommendations from the Sustainable Procurement Task Force, Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London.
Duncan, P. and Thomas, S. (2012), Acting on Localism: The Role of Housing Associations in Driving a
Community Agenda, ResPublica, Lincoln.
Harlock, J. (2014), “From outcomes-based commissioning to social value? Implications for
performance managing the third sector”,International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 417-436.
HM Government (2014), The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012: One Year On,CabinetOffice, London,
available at: http://buysocialdirectory.org.uk/sites/default/files/public_services_social_value_Act_-
_one_year_on.pdf, (accessed 10 October 2016).
Johnson, B. and Sommariva, A. (2012), “More than just homes: measuring Moat’s true social value
contribution, Moat thought leader essay”, Dartford, available at: www.moat.co.uk
Jones, M. and Wilson, K. (2014), “Delivering value for money in asset management”, available at: www.
cih.org/resources/PDF/Marketing%20PDFs/Presentations/Karen%20and%20Mervyn%20Asset
%20Tuesday%204pm.pdf, (accessed 16 September 2016).
Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006), “Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology”,Issues
in Educational Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 193-205.
NHS (2015), “Creating social value, public health England, the sustainable development unit”, National
Health Service, Cambridge, available at: www.sduhealth.org.uk/focus
O’Leary, Z. (2005), Researching Real-World Problems: A Guide to Methods of Inquiry, Sage, London.
Opoku, A., Ahmed, V. and Akotia, J. (2016), “Choosing appropriate research methods”, in Ahmed, V.,
Opoku, A. and Aziz, Z. (Eds), Research Methodology in the Built Environment: A Selection of
Case Studies, Routledge, London, pp. 32-49.
Stephens, G. (2016), Orbit Group & Service Matters Social Value: The Challenge of Embedding Social
Value in Procurement, The Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply (CIPS), Stamford-
Lincolnshire.
Social Value
Act 2012
267
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
Temple, N., Wigglesworth, C. and Smith, C. (2014), Communities Count: The Four Steps of Unlocking
Social Value, Social Enterprise, London.
Tomlins, R. (2015), Social Value Today: Current public and private thinking on Social Value, HouseMark,
Coventry, available at: www.housemark.co.uk
Trotter, L., Vine, J., Leach, M. and Fujiwara, D. (2014), Measuring the Social Impact of Community
Investment: A Guide to Using the Wellbeing Valuation Approach, Housing Association
Charitable Trust (HACT), London.
Wood, C. and Leighton, D. (2010), Measuring Social Value: The Gap between Policy and Practice,Demos,
London.
Corresponding author
Alex Opoku can be contacted at: alex.opoku@ucl.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JFM
16,3
268
Downloaded by University College London At 04:48 23 October 2018 (PT)
