Social Value 2.0 with Chris Paddock (PRD) and Will Watt (State of Life)
by Dominique Staindl, Consultant at the Quality of Life Foundation
As an industry, we’re sitting on the precipice of a crisis built on cost of living, which ultimately becomes a crisis of quality of life.
The discussion around social value, and the effective measurement of it, has now become essential in knowing just what effect new homes and neighbourhoods have on people’s health and wellbeing.
We’re moving from the attitude of ‘nice to have’ to necessity, but we need to gather the right evidence in the right way to understand what local communities value and need, and work out an effective response.
These were some of the themes that came up in our latest Associates workshop, held on 8 September 2022 with Chris Paddock of PRD Architects and Will Watt, State of Life.
In the workshop we explored what we could be doing to improve our social value measurement and understanding systems. Here are some of the key findings from the session:
Ask yourself: who owns the discussion?
Pay local people to do the engagement for you. Train them up. Support them. Too much assessment is an outside-in process and what is being talked about here is outcome-led.
Places are different. Knowledge and experience of places is held locally. So discussions should be community-led.
Those asking the questions and connecting with the communities should be representative of that very area and from a diverse background, because the definitions of social value or social value methodologies might vary accordingly, depending on the ‘authors’. Not all discussions are the same. Communities need to start developing the language for themselves.
Resource for consistency and comparability
These two research styles are critical to capturing a wider range of lived experience between different people and what they want. Asking real people, and using data from real people, is the only way to counter the accepted wisdom that is passed down.
Converse, rather than ‘engage’ wherever you can
We do a lot of engagement looking for specific answers, and we perhaps don’t enter enough conversations. Too often we talk to people, claiming or asking: do you like this, that, tell us what you think; whereas a conversation is something you go back to.
While you might start off with that set of questions, you could go back and continue the discussion. That can either be an informal, ongoing piece of qualitative research, or it can be a more formal piece of longitudinal statistical research. The continuation is where the value lies. Down the line, you can use Resident Review.
Don’t reinvent the wheel
Co-create. Get working with people. Don’t invent any new questions because the questions are out there already.
While places are different, on a worldwide scale people and their needs really aren’t, and that’s what evidence of wellbeing reveals.
Don’t underplay the value of qualitative data
We have historically underplayed the value of qualitative data. But we should use quantitative and qualitative research in a mixed method. Use local voluntary services to reach groups that otherwise wouldn’t be represented and work with local people to ask questions.
Tell a story
Once you have the data, convey it in a meaningful way.
That story doesn’t always have to be about finding the right metrics for what people need to live happily and healthily, but about finding the right metrics for what decision-makers need to act on that knowledge.
Communicate the evidence to decision makers in a persuasive way so that they make the right call, and to challenge biases.
In his essay upon leaving BlackRock as their first global Chief Investment Officer for Sustainable Investing, Tariq Fancy wrote: “If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us one key lesson, it’s that we must listen to the scientific experts and address a systemic crisis with systemic solutions. Reacting instead with denial, loose half-measures, or overly rosy forecasts lulls us into a false sense of security, eventually prolonging and worsening the crisis.”
Yet it becomes difficult to make comparisons between important evidence on financial products when reinvestment is best suited to finding value for commercial reasons. We rely on static, ‘top-down’ assumptions that are often developed by desired outcomes. Moreover, we streamline for our own benefit.
So we have to challenge ourselves to do better. We need to build programmes in our toolkits and indexes, we need to think about localities and have an effective response to them based on evidence that we collect; done in a way, across the industry that is consistent and safe. With all this talk about social value, we risk it becoming too loaded or washed out.
Many thanks to Chris and Will for their time and efforts, and wisdom. If you are interested in becoming an Associate, please find the relevant information and contact form here.
And don’t miss the conclusions of our recent social value roundtable with Landsec, Measuring Success.