Why More Organisations Are ‘Stress-Testing’ Their Social Value Claims
Social value has moved on.
What was once narrative-led and aspirational is now expected to be evidenced, measurable and defensible - particularly under PPN 002.
Yet many organisations are still relying on assumptions:
“We’ve always scored well before”
“We’ve got policies in place”
“We’re doing good things, surely that counts”
Increasingly, it doesn’t.
The risk no one talks about
The biggest risk in social value today isn’t lack of activity, it’s how its presented in a bid.
The most common issues we see include:
1. Commitments that aren’t clearly SMART
Many bidders either avoid making commitments or make ones that are too broad or vague to score well. If commitments aren’t Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant or Timebound, evaluators struggle to award marks. Strong narrative cannot substitute for SMART commitments.
2. Social value disconnected from the technical solution
A frequent issue is social value being treated as a standalone section rather than something embedded in the contract’s delivery model. When social value isn’t clearly linked to the technical solution - the workforce, supply chain, operational model or contract design - it feels theoretical or tokenistic rather than something deliverable which makes the contract better, and evaluators mark accordingly.
3. Overclaiming that can’t be evidenced
We often see statements that are ambitious but:
can’t be evidenced,
aren’t owned internally, or
don’t stand up to outcome-based scrutiny.
Overclaiming might read well on the page, but evaluators look for evidence of previous delivery or delivery details and score what they can verify, not what sounds impressive.
This creates risk and exposure in three key areas:
Lost bids: strong narratives or good corporate activities fall down due to weak evidence or unclear commitments in bids
Reputational risk: claims that don’t align with delivery
Leadership risk: senior teams signing off statements without assurance
From aspiration to assurance
This is where RED Reviews come in.
A RED Review is not just a marketing exercise or a compliance tick-box.
It is an independent stress-test of an organisation’s social value claims, evidence and governance.
At Samtaler, we approach RED Reviews as if we were on the other side of the table:
How would this be read by an evaluator?
Where would this score fall down?
What claims would be challenged?
What feels credible, and what feels performative?
The aim is simple: to surface risk before it becomes costly.
What a RED Review actually looks at
A RED Review typically examines:
Alignment between the response, the requirements, and scoring criteria
The quality and sufficiency of evidence
Outcome credibility, not just outputs
Internal ownership and accountability
Readiness for procurement, audit or public scrutiny
The output isn’t just a document mark-up, it’s detailed report and a prediction of how the buyer will actually read and score your response.
Why organisations are choosing to do this now
We’re seeing a clear shift.
Organisations are no longer asking: “Does this sound good?”
instead: “Would this stand up if challenged by evaluators, auditors or ministers?”
In a climate where social value is increasingly tied to commercial success, that question matters.
What’s Next?
At Samtaler, we understand the importance of social value to help businesses become better and stronger. To find out how we can help send an email to hello@samtaler.co.uk , complete our contact form or book a discovery call