Inclusive Partnerships and Supply Chains: EDI Social Value Beyond the Workforce
EDI social value is often framed as workforce diversity and internal culture. Increasingly, commissioners also look at who providers work with, how they influence local systems, and whether their supply chain choices support inclusion. This article forms part of the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) in Social Value series and aligns with the wider Social Value framework. The focus here is inclusive partnerships and supply chains that can be evidenced and contract-managed.
Why Partnerships and Supply Chains Matter in EDI Social Value
Providers can unintentionally reinforce inequality through who they commission, who they exclude, and how procurement is done. Conversely, inclusive approaches can strengthen access, community trust and outcomes. For commissioners, this is relevant because it:
- Improves service reach and engagement
- Strengthens prevention and community support
- Builds local economic value and workforce pathways
- Reduces reliance on single-system responses
Inclusive VCSE and Community Partnerships
Inclusive partnerships are most credible when they address a clear service problem and are governed properly. “We work with community groups” is not evidence; evaluators want to know what the partnership does, how it is coordinated, and how impact is measured.
Operational Example 1: VCSE Partnership That Improves Access and Engagement
Context: A provider supports people from communities where trust in statutory or regulated services is lower, leading to late presentation and increased crisis use.
Support approach: The provider formalises a partnership with a local VCSE organisation that has established community reach.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The VCSE partner provides supported introductions, culturally appropriate engagement support, and advice on accessible information. The provider designates a partnership lead, holds monthly coordination calls, and documents referrals, engagement outcomes and barriers identified. Staff receive briefings on culturally competent communication and escalation routes when engagement is faltering.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Improved referral completion rates, reduced “did not engage” outcomes, positive feedback from people supported, and governance records showing actions taken in response to identified barriers.
Inclusive Procurement in the Supply Chain
Supply chains can either widen participation or concentrate spend among large suppliers. Commissioners often want to see how providers support local SMEs, social enterprises and inclusive employers while maintaining quality and compliance.
Operational Example 2: Supplier Standards and Inclusive Purchasing Controls
Context: The provider’s purchasing is decentralised, with inconsistent checks on supplier quality and limited visibility of spend.
Support approach: The provider introduces supplier standards and a purchasing governance process that includes inclusion considerations.
Day-to-day delivery detail: A supplier onboarding checklist includes quality compliance, safeguarding expectations (where relevant), and basic inclusion standards (e.g., fair employment practices). Spend is reviewed quarterly to understand proportion allocated to local suppliers and social enterprises. Where quality-critical categories must remain with established suppliers, the rationale is recorded. Leaders review exceptions and document improvement actions.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Increased spend with local inclusive suppliers where appropriate, improved auditability of purchasing decisions, and reduced procurement-related risk incidents (e.g., supply failures or poor quality).
Inclusive Economic Participation and Workforce Pathways
EDI social value is also evidenced through who is supported into work, training and progression. Providers that create inclusive pathways can demonstrate impact beyond the immediate service.
Operational Example 3: Inclusive Local Pathways Into Care Roles
Context: The provider struggles to recruit and retain staff and identifies under-representation from some local communities.
Support approach: The provider works with local partners to create accessible pathways into roles, with structured support rather than ad-hoc recruitment.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The provider offers supported induction formats, buddying, and flexible onboarding for candidates who may need adjustments. Partnerships with community organisations and local colleges support outreach and pre-employment preparation. Managers monitor progression and probation outcomes to ensure candidates are not set up to fail due to unclear expectations or inconsistent supervision.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Improved recruitment conversion rates, stronger probation pass rates, better retention in the first six months, and recorded adjustments that demonstrate inclusive practice rather than one-off “special treatment”.
Commissioner Expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect social value claims about inclusive partnerships and supply chains to be specific, measurable and governed, with clear accountability and transparent reporting.
Regulator / Inspector Expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation: Inspectors expect leaders to understand how partnerships and external arrangements affect quality and safety, and to evidence oversight, learning and risk management for outsourced or partner-delivered elements.
Governance That Prevents “Partnership Theatre”
To avoid partnerships that exist only on paper, providers should document purpose, roles, information sharing, escalation processes and review points. The strongest evidence includes meeting notes, agreed measures, and documented changes made following partner feedback.
What to Report (and What Not to)
Good reporting focuses on inputs and outcomes that can be verified: number of joint interventions, engagement improvements, supplier spend breakdowns, and documented governance actions. Avoid vague claims about “supporting diversity” with no mechanism or metric.