Why Procurement Needs to Stop Guessing and Start Delivering Real Social Impact

Public procurement has enormous potential to drive positive social change. With billions of pounds spent each year, it is one of the most powerful tools we have to tackle some of our biggest challenges — from health inequalities and skills shortages to net zero and social mobility.

And yet, too often, it falls short.

Not because the ambition isn’t there. Not because suppliers don’t care. But because the system itself is asking the wrong people the wrong question.

The problem with “supplier-led” social value

Under the current model, social value is largely left to suppliers to define. At tender stage, organisations are asked to explain what they will do to add social value alongside delivering the core contract.

On the surface, this seems reasonable. In practice, it creates three significant problems.

First, it disadvantages smaller businesses. Large national suppliers have dedicated bid teams, CSR departments and marketing resources. SMEs — who are often deeply rooted in their communities — simply don’t. They may be doing great work already, but struggle to package it up in a way that scores well in procurement processes. The result? Good local suppliers lose out, and procurement becomes harder, slower and less competitive.

Second, it places decisions in the wrong hands. Many suppliers are not based in the communities they serve. Expecting them to determine what a particular place needs in order to create meaningful social impact is unrealistic. A national contractor — however well-intentioned — is rarely best placed to decide whether an area needs investment in skills, health, climate resilience or social mobility.

Third, it leads to well-meaning but low-impact activity. Beach cleans, fun runs, sponsorship of local sports teams, or one-off volunteering days are easy to describe in a tender. They look good on paper. But they do not, on their own, tackle systemic issues like health inequality, carbon reduction or long-term economic opportunity.

The result is a system that generates activity — but not always impact.

We wouldn’t design services this way — so why design social value this way?

In almost every other aspect of public service delivery, commissioners decide outcomes first and then procure accordingly. We define priorities, assess local need, and align delivery to strategic goals.

Social value should be no different.

Yet instead of saying “This is what our community needs — how will you help us deliver it?”, we often say “Tell us what you think social value looks like.”

That is the gap Contract to Community is designed to close.

What Contract to Community changes — and why it matters

Contract to Community flips the model.

Rather than asking suppliers to invent social value, the commissioning body defines it upfront, based on local priorities, lived experience and strategic objectives.

Suppliers then contribute to pre-agreed, community-led programmes that are already designed to deliver real outcomes.

The changes required are modest:

• No new legislation

• No complex procurement reform

• No additional burden on suppliers

But the impact is transformational.

For communities, it means social value is targeted, consistent and aligned to real need — not scattergun gestures.

For commissioners, it means confidence that procurement spend is genuinely contributing to net zero, reducing inequalities, or improving skills and opportunity — with clear accountability and measurable impact.

For suppliers, especially SMEs, it levels the playing field. They are no longer judged on their ability to “invent” social value initiatives, but on delivering excellent services while contributing fairly to agreed local outcomes.

And crucially, it restores trust — because communities can see where the value is going, why it matters, and what difference it is making.

This is evolution, not revolution

Contract to Community is not a criticism of procurement professionals. Quite the opposite.

It recognises the pressures they face: regulatory complexity, stretched teams, risk aversion and competing priorities. It also recognises the genuine desire across the sector to do the right thing.

This is simply a smarter way of achieving the outcomes we already want.

By making social value intentional rather than incidental, strategic rather than symbolic, and community-led rather than supplier-guessed, we can unlock the true power of procurement.

What happens next

I have requested a meeting with the newly established Office for the Impact Economy, because this is exactly the kind of practical, system-level change it exists to support.

If we are serious about impact — not just activity — then we must be willing to rethink where decisions are made and who they are made for.

The changes are small. The benefits are significant. And the opportunity is right in front of us.

What do you think? Should social value be defined by suppliers — or by communities?

If you’d like to explore the concept in more detail, including the practical benefits for commissioners, suppliers and communities, you can read more about Contract to Community here: https://www.stuartelford.com/c2c.