Net Zero and Environmental Sustainability as a Social Value Requirement in Care Contracts
Environmental sustainability is no longer a specialist theme limited to estates-heavy services. It is increasingly reflected in social value evaluation and contract monitoring across adult social care, including homecare, supported living and community services. Commissioners need assurance that providers can contribute proportionately to net zero ambitions without compromising safe delivery. This article sits within Social Value Policy, National Priorities & Public Sector Duties and aligns to the broader Social Value Knowledge Hub. The focus is practical implementation: what can be delivered, how it is governed, and how impact is evidenced.
Why Sustainability Appears in Social Value Scoring
Public sector bodies operate within national commitments on climate and sustainability. Social value provides a route to test whether providers can contribute through everyday operational decisions: travel, procurement, waste, digital practice and workforce behaviour. In adult social care, credible sustainability commitments are typically:
- Proportionate to the service model (not unrealistic “net zero overnight” statements)
- Linked to operational controls (fleet, rotas, procurement, energy use)
- Measured using simple, repeatable indicators
What Commissioners Commonly Look For
Commissioners usually expect a provider to demonstrate:
- A basic carbon-aware operating approach (travel reduction, route optimisation, hybrid meetings)
- Responsible procurement (supplier standards, reduced single-use items where safe)
- Waste reduction and safe disposal processes
- Governance oversight with named accountability
Importantly, sustainability must not conflict with safeguarding, infection prevention, or the requirement to respond quickly to risk and deterioration.
Operational Example 1: Travel Reduction Without Reducing Care Quality
Context: A domiciliary care provider operates across a semi-rural patch where staff travel time is high and continuity is difficult to sustain.
Support approach: The provider aligns sustainability social value to travel reduction through rota design and locality-based micro-teams.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Schedulers allocate calls to minimise cross-area travel and prioritise consistent staff for people with complex needs. Team leaders review travel exceptions weekly (late referrals, safeguarding concerns, sickness) to ensure sustainability goals do not override safety. Digital care notes reduce paper use and allow supervisors to identify route inefficiencies (for example repeated “double-backs” due to missed information).
How change is evidenced: The provider tracks mileage per care hour, continuity metrics, missed call rates and safeguarding escalations. Reductions in mileage are reported alongside quality indicators to demonstrate that travel efficiency is not creating harm.
Operational Example 2: Sustainable Procurement and Safe Use of Consumables
Context: A supported living service uses large volumes of cleaning products, PPE and everyday consumables, with inconsistent purchasing across sites.
Support approach: Social value delivery focuses on standardised procurement and reduced waste while maintaining infection control and safe environments.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The provider introduces a centralised approved products list, bulk ordering to reduce packaging, and clear storage/stock rotation to prevent expiry waste. House managers complete monthly checks on stock levels and disposal logs. Where single-use items remain necessary (for example specific PPE), the provider documents rationale and ensures staff understand correct use to avoid unnecessary consumption.
How change is evidenced: Procurement data shows reduced unit cost and reduced product wastage. Environmental improvements are reported alongside audit outcomes (environmental cleanliness, infection control checks, and health and safety inspections).
Operational Example 3: Waste, Food Practice and Everyday Sustainability With People Using Services
Context: A service supports adults with autism and learning disabilities, some of whom have restricted diets or routines that lead to higher food waste and limited recycling participation.
Support approach: The provider links sustainability social value to person-centred approaches that reduce waste while respecting choice, rights and wellbeing.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff use visual planning tools for meal choices, smaller portion preparation, and structured “try and review” approaches where people want to broaden diets. Recycling participation is introduced through PBS-style graded support (clear bins, visual cues, predictable routines). Any change is risk assessed to avoid distress escalation or restrictive practice. Where incidents occur, staff record antecedents and learning, and the approach is adapted rather than abandoned.
How change is evidenced: The service measures reduction in food waste (simple weigh/volume checks weekly), increased recycling participation, and tracks whether incidents increase or reduce. Governance review ensures sustainability efforts do not create avoidable risk.
Commissioner Expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect sustainability commitments to be proportionate, embedded into operational practice (travel, procurement, waste) and evidenced through repeatable measures that can be contract-managed.
Regulator / Inspector Expectation
Regulator expectation: Inspectors expect services to remain safe, effective and responsive while demonstrating responsible stewardship of resources. Where sustainability changes affect routines, environments or staffing patterns, inspectors will look for risk assessment, learning and assurance that people are not harmed.
Governance and Assurance Mechanisms
To avoid sustainability becoming a “paper commitment”, providers should govern it through the same structures used for quality and safety. Common mechanisms include:
- Named lead and board-level oversight within governance reporting
- Simple KPIs (mileage per care hour, paper reduction, procurement waste, recycling participation)
- Quarterly review of sustainability impacts alongside safeguarding and incident data
- Documented decision-making where sustainability is balanced against safety requirements
Making Sustainability Credible in Bids and Delivery
In bids, credibility comes from showing you understand the operational trade-offs and have controls to manage them. In delivery, credibility comes from monitoring, learning and making adjustments without losing sight of core outcomes: safe care, stable staffing, safeguarding effectiveness and reliable service continuity.