The idea of social value was founded in the belief that better places mean people can live healthier and happier lives. Yet the very basis on which ‘social value’ has come to be defined as a product of development is flawed. It has emerged to bridge the gap between the fundamental purpose of development – to serve society – and the need to justify the public benefit of an essentially commercial activity. Hence, in the process of defining ‘social value’ we have created a reductive tool of measurement rather than a means to deliver benefits to society. 

 

When in 2012 The Public Services (Social Value) Act required public bodies to maximise wider social benefits through their commissioning, ‘social value’ quickly became an additional requirement in tender criteria, with delivery against KPIs focusing on the ‘low hanging fruit’ – identifying immediately measurable activities such as providing employment opportunities to local residents. These are beneficial opportunities for those involved but they’re modest in comparison to the multi-million-pound projects to which they’re attached.

 

The built environment sector is beginning to recognise these shortcomings. A growing number of architects, contractors, developers and investors are taking a longer-term interest in sustainable place-making and have been exploring alternative ways to deliver ‘social value’, but such efforts will continue to fall short as long as society continues to be treated as something external to development, rather than something on which development depends.

 

Our proposition is that the problem lies in the name. ‘Value’ in social terms is a judgment, perceived differently depending on people’s perspectives; it relates to what already exists, not just to what can be added; and it is continually changing. If we agree that the ultimate purpose of all development is to serve society then perhaps ‘social purpose’ is what we should be focusing on. Such purpose needs to be specific to its context, based on a thorough knowledge of what exists and is already valued, and arrived at through a process of collaborative engagement to ‘ground’ it locally. Once this ‘purpose’ has been agreed as part of a locally shared vision then it can provide a valid basis on which to define and assess the eventual social outcomes that are aimed for.  

 

The collective experience of the COVID pandemic has alerted the world to the relevance of social narratives: of the need to address inequalities; the levels of local interest and participation; and the value of self-determination. By bringing people and communities’ direct experiences into the frame, understanding is enriched and the value of development connected directly to people’s lives. This is an extremely important step.

 

So what does this mean for current policy and guidance?  The latest edition of HM Treasury’s ‘Green Book’ provides a framework for weighing up social value alongside other metrics, based on the wellbeing outcomes from a project or service. Value is awarded for engaging people in decision making, but the means is mechanistic and the fundamental disconnect between the development process and those affected by it remains unchallenged. The new London Plan’s Policy D1: London’s form, character and capacity for growth, takes a significant step forward, with a requirement in Development Plans for detailed area assessments, arrived at through local engagement – ‘an evaluation of the current characteristics of a place, how its past social, cultural, physical and environmental influences have shaped it and what the potential opportunities are for it to change will help inform an understanding of an area’s capacity for growth and is crucial for ensuring that growth and development is inclusive’. Guidance on this has yet to be issued, so might this be an opportunity to provide a new definition of development for social purpose?    

 

Social purpose development is not, after all, a new idea. Organisations, such as Igloo, have been established in this mould for many years and there has been a flourishing of new enterprises across the sector who see their validity through social benefit, and structure themselves to prioritise it. They recognise that profits can be generated through long-term investment in creating and sustaining thriving communities. As Jonny Anstead, of developer Town puts it: “We see social and environmental outcomes as being the fundamental objectives of our business. We don’t see these as ‘nice-to-haves’, nor as by-products of a model that is primarily about making money. We’re by no means the only developer putting social objectives central to our approach, but sadly this remains far from norm in a sector that values financial return above all else”

 

What is needed now is to distil models of best practice from these examples so that they become mainstream. Perhaps shifting focus away from ‘social value’ metrics is not enough and it will be necessary to incentivise the sector to rediscover its social purpose. But also consider the gains to be derived from a the development process built on trust that works collaboratively to identify and deliver lasting social benefits.

Matter Architecture has been working with Ealing Council and social value experts Mobilise to develop a strategic brief for housing the Borough’s older adults.  Local Authorities are inherently driven by social purpose, but often struggle to align their objectives across service and housing delivery.  To address this Ealing brought together senior representatives of adult services, health and housing to form a steering group.  Matter and Mobilise worked with this group to develop a shared set of objectives for the brief and created a ‘rich picture’ of social benefits tied to design requirements in the brief.  This included ‘proxy savings’ - ie. financially measured impacts that are indicative of scale and form of the benefits.  These in turn link to a much broader and deeper logic and narrative of the overall benefits which are key to making the business case.  In this way the financial metrics are presented as the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of social value and demonstrate the fundamental social purpose of the programme. The first phase of housing identified in the brief is now progressing towards planning.

 

ftwork is piloting My Place, an innovative approach to local development, which prioritises the interests and needs of existing communities and grounds social purpose within a particular place and context. Working with London Development Trust, My Place Finsbury Park is empowering young people to advocate for their communities, and connecting them with local decision-makers to co-create neighbourhood development. The premise is that building lasting, productive relationships of trust between local people and those who serve them is key to creating successful and inclusive places. The social value cuts both ways: for the developer it is in harnessing the unique role of young people to access local knowledge and work with them to deliver results that bring social benefits. For the young people it in enhancing skills and achieving a sense of agency and influence – perhaps even becoming the community leaders of the future. 

 

Acknowledging the lack of agreement on the definition of social value and on how the gathering of social value data might be spatialized, Professor Flora Samuel ran a recent research project at the University of Reading to develop a methodology for collecting social value data with local communities. In response to rich information collected through workshops, handmade community maps were created, following clear rules. These were redrawn as multi-layered vector maps collating different interpretations of value and converting them into an accessible visual format. Besides supporting feedback and analysis with both participants and the Local Authority, the research sought to position mapping as a strategic tool for revealing common values and communicating potential in the built environment, with the aim of developing value-based knowledge particularly useful to early design and decision-making processes.