You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Beyond the bid: are social housing providers doing enough to hold suppliers accountable?
The Social Value Act gave the social housing sector the power to drive real change. But power without enforcement is meaningless, writes Francesca Lee, chief executive and founder of Social Value Architect
Francesca Lee is chief executive and founder of SocialValueArchitect
Beyond the bid: are social housing providers doing enough to hold suppliers accountable? #UKhousingThe Social Value Act gave the sector power to drive real change. But power without enforcement is meaningless, writes Francesca Lee of Social Value Architect #UKhousingThe 2012 Social Value Act was a turning point for procurement in the UK’s social housing sector. It shifted the focus from price and efficiency to something far more significant: the long-term social and environmental impact of every purchasing decision.
In theory, this should have transformed supplier relationships. Social housing providers now have a mandate to demand more than just services – they can require suppliers to deliver measurable social value. But more than a decade on, how much of this promise is actually being realised?
Too often, social value commitments are front-loaded into the procurement process, only to be forgotten post-tender. Suppliers make bold claims to win contracts, but where’s the accountability once they’ve secured the deal? Are housing providers doing enough to ensure that suppliers truly deliver on their promises? Or is the sector at risk of letting social value become just another box-ticking exercise?
Read more
Procurement teams work hard to select suppliers which align with their organisation’s sustainability and social impact goals. But once the contract is signed, there’s a worrying trend – due diligence fades into the background.
The result? Greenwashing, where suppliers exaggerate sustainability efforts with no real impact; empty social value promises; and unethical practices hidden in supply chains, from exploitative labor to non-compliant sourcing.
In some cases, suppliers know they won’t be challenged post-tender. Without regular checks, data verification and meaningful key performance indicators (KPIs), it becomes easy for suppliers to overpromise and underdeliver.
“Housing providers should track a supplier’s performance throughout the contract lifecycle, not just assess its credentials upfront”
Let’s be honest, how many contracts have real, enforceable consequences for failing to meet social value commitments? If there’s no financial penalty or risk of contract termination, where’s the incentive for suppliers to take these obligations seriously?
The Social Value Act gave housing associations a powerful tool to shape a more ethical, sustainable procurement landscape. But that power only works if it’s used effectively. Right now, it’s not enough.
Social value should be treated like any other contract deliverable, with clear benchmarks, regular reporting and genuine consequences for failure. So, what do procurement teams need to do?
To start, we must move beyond the tender process. Selecting a supplier is just step one. Housing providers should track a supplier’s performance throughout the contract lifecycle, not just assess its credentials upfront. Due diligence should be an ongoing process, with scheduled supplier reviews and audits to measure real impact.
Procurement teams need to set enforceable social value KPIs. Too many contracts include vague, non-binding commitments to social value. This has to change. Suppliers should be required to report quarterly on their progress, with financial incentives for success and penalties for non-compliance.
They should demand transparency and data verification. If suppliers claim they are reducing carbon emissions or hiring from underrepresented groups, where’s the proof? Social housing providers should insist on independent verification of social value data, ensuring suppliers aren’t simply marking their own homework.
Social value is not theoretical – it should be felt on the ground. Housing providers should actively seek feedback from tenants and the community to verify whether supplier initiatives are making a difference.
“If social landlords don’t step up, the entire premise of social value in procurement is at risk”
Some will argue that procurement teams are already stretched thin and that enforcing supplier accountability adds another layer of complexity. But the reality is, if social landlords don’t step up, the entire premise of social value in procurement is at risk.
It’s not enough to demand social value. We have to demand proof. It’s not enough to trust supplier promises. We have to verify them. It’s not enough to select ethical suppliers. We have to hold them accountable.
Right now, too many suppliers see social value as a procurement formality – something to include in a bid rather than a fundamental part of their service delivery. This has to change. The only way it will, is if housing providers take an active role in enforcement.
The Social Value Act gave the social housing sector the power to drive real change. But power without enforcement is meaningless.
If we want to build a genuinely sustainable and socially responsible supply chain, it’s time to get serious about due diligence, data verification and contract enforcement. Because in the end, this isn’t just about suppliers – it’s about ensuring that social value delivers for the communities we serve.
Francesca Lee, chief executive and founder, Social Value Architect
Related stories
