Raidén, A B and King, A (2022) Considering, creating and delivering social value: Problematic polarisations. In: Tutesigensi, A and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 38th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2022, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
Social value as a concept has evolved rapidly over the last decade or so. We observe polarisation in the understanding and appreciation of what it means to consider, create, and deliver social value. Divergence and tensions are arising between those who run value-based businesses and do social value, and those who focus on measuring social value as an 'added value'. We explore these different approaches to conceptualising and operationalising social value using case examples from industry. Deontological theory of ethics and accounting principles offer the analytical framework for our critical discussion. We voice concerns about the development of a 'social value industry' and the aspiration to devise a single definition and list of all things social value vis-à-vis a values-driven and contextual approach. At the heart of our discussion is a fear that the polarisation may begin to devalue the concept, and the well-intended principles behind social value that have made it visible over the past decade may be lost. We forward an argument for social value to be seen and used as a tool to address one of the grand challenges of our time, the 'planet, people and prosperity' agenda connected to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Building Back Wiser.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | social value; ethics; polarisation; sustainable development goals |
| Index terms: | ethics, added value, analytical framework, heart, accounting, sustainable development goal, social value |
| Subjects: | ethical practice, data analysis and analytics, economic analysis, sociology, sustainable design, medical science and clinical practice |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Sustainability, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here