How Has the Industry Reacted to PPN 026?

The launch of PPN 026 has prompted a strong and varied reaction across the social value, procurement, VCSE, sustainability and public sector communities. While there is support for the Government's desire to focus procurement on tangible employment outcomes, many practitioners are questioning whether the new model has become too narrow, potentially overlooking the broader social, environmental and community impacts that have become synonymous with social value over the last decade.

At Samtaler, we have reviewed reactions published by practitioners, consultants, social enterprises, membership bodies, industry commentators and delivery organisations. The discussion reflects a broad range of views from across the social value profession, which we have grouped into six key themes.

Has Social Value Been Streamlined or Stripped Back?

The most common concern raised across the sector is that the model may have been simplified too far.

Many respondents questioned whether the Government has merely changed how social value is measured, or whether it has fundamentally changed what social value means.

One social value consultant posed perhaps the most fundamental question:

"Has Government changed what social value is... or simply changed what it intends to evaluate through procurement?"

Several practitioners expressed unease about the narrowing of the model to jobs and skills. One social value specialist argued that the:

"Social Value Model just got gutted"

and questioned:

"Is a narrow model that reaches the right people better than a broad one that reached no one? Or have we just quietly dropped social value's ambition on the environment and community?"

Similar concerns were raised by a consultant working within the infrastructure sector, who questioned:

"what the justification is for only focusing on jobs and skills?"

Another social value practitioner suggested:

"it's [still] economic value, not social value."

For others, the concern is less about what has been removed and more about the message it sends. One engineering-sector social value specialist warned:

"The challenge now will be ensuring that, even with this narrower central government model in place, we as practitioners do not narrow our ambition."

A consultant involved in the consultation process also questioned why the final model appears so different from expectations following consultation, asking:

"Why is the new PPN so narrow? What happens to vital community outreach now?"

Meanwhile, a social impact technology specialist highlighted the risk of overlooking the wider barriers people face before entering employment:

"No consideration what people actually need before they can access employment."

Another practitioner questioned whether organisations will continue investing in the now-unscored areas of social value:

"I wonder if developers and clients will continue to use the missing themes/metrics to generate value to communities via their programmes and supply chain."

A social impact researcher also expressed disappointment at the direction of travel, arguing that social value has evolved through years of engagement, innovation and place-based practice. The changes were described as feeling like:

"a disconnect from all the engagement that's gone into shaping it"

with concerns that the renewed focus on jobs and skills overlooks much of the wider work developed across the profession.

A social value measurement specialist welcomed the ambition of supporting people facing barriers to employment but questioned how concepts such as "good jobs" will be defined in practice. Concerns were also raised about where environmental, health and wider community outcomes will sit if they are no longer included within the central government model.