Shift from price to public advantage
Recent procurement reforms reinforce social value as a strategic lever for public advantage, with greater emphasis on delivery, measurement and contract performance. With the Procurement Act (2023), taken with the National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS), there is a clear shift from solely price-led procurement for central and local government alike, albeit with variance in approach to application and evaluation.
In practice, this means local buyers can reflect their priorities in how social value is requested and evaluated, while central government has clearer structure through the updated Social Value Model (PPN 002), including expectations around award criteria, reporting, place-based delivery and accountability, reinforced by the Contract Management Playbook’s focus on KPIs and performance management.
But this is not an England-only shift. Scotland’s procurement and community benefits policies, alongside its wealth-building agenda, and Wales’s wellbeing-led approach to Socially Responsible Procurement all point to the same expectation: credible social value should reflect public priorities and community need.
Crucially, the definition of social value in public procurement continues to evolve. As recognised at ISVCON (June 2026), the sector is at a “critical inflection point”: commitments now need to demonstrate measurable community impact, not just good intent. Stronger expectations will only lead to better outcomes if social value is relevant to the contract, proportionate to the opportunity and governed through delivery.
Andy Burnham’s move from Greater Manchester to Downing Street is likely to accelerate this shift. A long-standing advocate of social value, Burnham has consistently argued that public spending should create value for communities, local economies and good work, not simply secure the lowest cost. For practitioners and suppliers alike, the message is clear: social value is increasingly judged not by what is promised at tender stage, but by what is delivered and evidenced in practice.
The peril of over-prescription
Higher expectations do not automatically translate into higher impact. The risk starts when different technology contracts are treated as if they deliver the same social outcomes. A hardware refresh may lend itself to device reuse or digital inclusion initiatives; a managed service may better support skills, knowledge transfer or inclusive design.
If requirements take a “one-size-fits-all” approach, or rely too heavily on what is easiest to count, suppliers can be pushed towards commitments that score well at bid stage but are hard to deliver, evidence or sustain. This prescription and specificity at a contract level can pull activity away from the outcomes communities need most.
