Current social value measures in construction focus too much on predictable activities like local employment and supply chain spending, with less than 1% dedicated to carbon reduction.
- Over 98% of the £6.8bn social value derived from construction frameworks is associated with easily achievable measures, neglecting critical environmental objectives.
- Robbie Blackhurst from Black Capital Group emphasises the urgent need to update flawed metrics, advocating for separate environmental goals to drive both social and ecological progress.
- Industry experts call for a comprehensive overhaul of the social value framework, integrating stakeholder voices and clear environmental metrics.
- There is a growing consensus on the need for an official governing body to establish standardised metrics that balance environmental and social objectives.
The construction industry’s current framework for measuring social value disproportionately favours conventional activities over environmental initiatives. Despite a surge in sustainable construction practices globally, less than 1% of social value created by UK construction enterprises is linked to carbon reduction efforts. This disparity reveals a critical shortfall in current metrics, where over 98% of the reported £6.8bn social value stems from routine measures like local employment and supply chain involvement.
Robbie Blackhurst, representing Black Capital Group, criticises these established metrics, highlighting that activities such as hiring local staff or engaging local subcontractors are standard in the industry and consequently should not significantly bolster a firm’s social value score. He describes the existing framework as ‘flawed,’ suggesting that high-frequency, low-impact activities dominate social value calculations without promoting genuine environmental advancement.
Compliance Chain, a construction software provider, uses an alternative to the widely adopted Themes, Outcomes, and Measures (TOMs) system, which was originally crafted to encourage public sector entities to embed wider social, economic, and environmental benefits into their projects. However, the TOMs system’s limitations, including difficulty of access and the focus on monetary expenditure rather than community or environmental outcomes, are increasingly seen as problematic.
Oliver Kempton of Envoy Partnership echoes this sentiment, arguing that the current focus is too narrow, concentrating on financial expenditures rather than the overarching impact on communities and the environment. He advocates for a more integrated approach that prioritises environmental and community well-being impacts, suggesting this could be achieved by embedding stakeholder feedback and environmental indicators into the evaluation process.
Moreover, Blackhurst, along with other industry leaders, proposes that environmental objectives be separated from social value metrics to ensure dedicated attention to both areas. Kingsley Clarke from SCF supports this idea, emphasising the need to address environmental considerations such as embodied carbon independently from social aspects like education and reoffending programs.
On the other hand, Precious Zumbika-Lwanga from Carus Advisory Services points to the potential pitfalls of over-standardisation, which could lead to mere box-ticking exercises rather than meaningful progress. She suggests that while standardisation offers benefits like improved benchmarking and fund allocation, flexibility in choosing relevant metrics for procuring organisations must be preserved.
This debate comes amidst reports that apprenticeship requirements enforced by local authorities are adversely impacting some construction firms and trainees, pointing to additional complexities in aligning economic and social values with industry practice.
Revising social value metrics to separately address environmental and social goals could drive meaningful progress in construction’s sustainable practices.
