In the News (Part II): Defending Social Value After the ‘Pantomime’ Attack
Updated onBy Christopher Jones, Advocacy Officer
In a previous blog and in our October Newsletter, we published our commentary on the procurement process led by Great British Nuclear (GBN) for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition, where we argued that the characterisation and criticism of social value requirements as mere red tape distracts from the more important question of how social value can be embedded meaningfully in public spending. Today, in light of a fresh article in The Times further critiquing the role of social value in public spending, we return to the conversation.
On the 9th of November, The Times published an article titled 'Calls to end 'pantomime' social-value requirements in public contracts', which reports that some policymakers and commentators are calling for the social-value regime in public procurement to be scrapped, branding it a 'pointless pantomime'.
We believe this second article highlights three key problems: misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and mis-design. Each of these deserves a clear response.
Misunderstanding: Policy, not pantomime
The Times article quotes voices claiming that firms are burdened by social value requirements, branding them "a pointless pantomime that just prices start-ups out of working with government". Social value is represented as performance rather than policy.
At The Institute for Social Value, we disagree. Social Value is not a showpiece or a box-ticking exercise. It is, as we argued in our previous response, a strategic framework that ensures public spending delivers long-term benefits for people, places, and the planet. Social Value has the power to bring more inclusive employment, more resilient supply chains, and improved community wellbeing. It is not about theatre; it is about results.
The continued portrayal of social value as 'red tape' reveals a worrying trend in public debate that focuses on process at the expense of purpose. If we are serious about improving value for money, we should be continuing to ask how to design social value criteria as effectively as possible, not how to remove them entirely.
Misrepresentation: Getting proportion right
The Times piece also argues that large public sector organisations impose “miscellaneous requirements” that small companies cannot meet, while large firms hire teams to “tick boxes and game the process”.
We agree that if social value is applied poorly, it can become burdensome or exclusionary; this is something that we at the Institute have long highlighted as a challenge that must be addressed. But it is crucial to understand that this is a failure of design, not of principle.
Social value requirements must be proportionate, transparent, and genuinely connected to outcomes. They should support smaller firms and VCSEs, who are often best placed to deliver those outcomes, to compete, not lock them out. They should be measurable and linked to the purpose and crucially the Location of each contract.
In the SMR competition, for example, social value commitments focused on workplace diversity, inclusive employment, and support for disadvantaged groups. These were not decorative extras. They were designed to ensure that investment in major infrastructure also strengthened local opportunity.
Mis-design: Reform, not retreat
The Times article notes that public procurement is worth around £400 bn a year and cites critics that suggest current rules slow procurement timelines and make processes unnecessarily complex.
The answer is not to abandon social value. The answer, again, is to refine its implementation.
At ISV, we believe reform should focus on three things. First, integrating social value considerations that are proportionate and practical. Second, continuing to improve oversight and accountability so that commitments are delivered, not just promised. Third, supporting smaller suppliers with clearer guidance and examples of good practice.
Designed in this way, procurement has the potential to become a driver of quality and accountability, rather than a source of delay.
Pushing back against the narrative
In our previous blog we argued that inclusive employment, fair supply chains, and local economic resilience are not peripheral benefits but core components of responsible public spending.
The new article risks pushing the conversation in the opposite direction. Labelling social value a ‘pantomime’ trivialises genuine efforts to ensure tax payers-funded projects deliver benefits that extend beyond the balance sheet. If we allow that framing to take hold, we risk undermining years of progress in building procurement systems that reflect modern social priorities.
