The Social Value Act 2012: current state of practice in the social housing sector

Abstract

Purpose

The social housing sector is under increasing pressure to do more with less and provide value for money as part of the UK Government’s public debt reduction strategy. This study aims to explore the current practices towards unlocking social value in the housing sector through the adoption of the Social Value Act 2012. The Social Value Act seeks to ensure that public sector procurement deliver added value in terms of social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

The study adopts quantitative research methodology through a survey with 100 housing professionals charged with the delivery of social value outcomes in the social housing sector in England.

Findings

The results of the study reveal that there is a low level of understanding of the Social Value Act 2012 among the professionals in the social housing sector. Once again, most organisations in the social housing sector do not have social value strategies or policies and rarely consider social value outcomes during procurement. However, employment skills and training and crime and antisocial behaviour reduction are the most social value priority outcomes/needs identified with organisations currently promoting social value in the social housing sector.

Social implications

The issue of social value has importance towards the wider society, and the study provides an insight into current practices towards the realisation of social value outcomes in the housing sector.

Originality/value

The Social Value Act 2012 came into force in January 2013, and little has been written on the impact of the Act on the social housing sector in England. This study identifies current practices in the social housing sector towards the delivery of social value outcomes in the day-to-day business operations.

Citation

Opoku, A. and Guthrie, P. (2018), "The Social Value Act 2012: current state of practice in the social housing sector", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-11-2016-0049