ESG is said to be in decline. The practice is not.

ESG is said to be in decline. The practice is not. There is a growing narrative that ESG is falling out of favour. In some circles, particularly political and activist spaces, it is portrayed as costly, distracting or even bad for business. At the same time, many organisations are quietly reducing their use of the term ESG in public-facing documents. This has led to the perception that companies are moving away from sustainability and social responsibility altogether. The reality is more nuanced. What is declining is not the underlying practice, but the buzzword. Many organisations continue to invest in environmental performance, workforce development, ethical supply chains and community impact. They are simply describing it differently.

• Responsible business.
• Sustainability.
• Social value.
• Risk management.
• Resilience.

In procurement, the focus has never really been on the label. It has always been on outcomes.

From optional to expected, whatever you call it

In the UK, most medium and large procurement exercises now include explicit weighting for social value, environmental impact or wider responsible business outcomes. In public sector tenders this is often formalised through social value models, community benefit clauses or scoring criteria linked to employment, skills development, sustainability and local economic impact. Corporate procurement is moving in the same direction. Buyers are under growing pressure from investors, regulators, employees and customers to demonstrate responsible sourcing and measurable environmental progress.

At the same time, sustainability expectations are cascading through supply chains. Frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) encourage organisations to set supplier engagement targets, requiring key suppliers to adopt science-based emissions reduction goals. Because supply chain emissions are often significantly larger than a company’s direct operational footprint, large organisations cannot meet net-zero commitments without influencing their suppliers. The result is a ripple effect across the market. Suppliers increasingly need to demonstrate credible environmental and social practices simply to remain eligible for contracts.

This is not just about regulation or environmental targets. It reflects a broader shift in expectations across the entire business ecosystem.

Investors increasingly factor sustainability into risk and investment decisions.

Employees are drawn to organisations with a clear sense of purpose and responsibility.

Customers expect authentic proof of environmental and social commitments.

Governments are embedding social value and carbon reduction into procurement frameworks.

Together, these pressures are reshaping how organisations evaluate suppliers.

The problem with tick box approaches

As expectations have grown, so too has superficial compliance. Many bids still rely on vague statements about values, a single annual charity donation or a staff initiative that happened once and is unlikely to be repeated. These actions are not inherently negative, but procurement teams are well practised at spotting the difference between embedded practice and activity designed purely to score points. From a buyer’s perspective, these approaches raise uncomfortable questions.

Is this activity core to how the business operates or bolted on for the tender?

Will it continue if the contract is awarded, or quietly disappear?

Does it create measurable outcomes, or simply sound positive?

When social value or sustainability scoring is involved, assessors are trained to look for substance, governance and longevity. They consistently reward initiatives that are integrated into day-to-day operations rather than one-off gestures.

What strong bidders are doing differently

Businesses that consistently score well tend to share several characteristics, regardless of the language they use. First, their commitments are embedded into the business model. Environmental impact is considered in procurement, logistics and lifecycle decisions, not confined to an annual report. Community engagement is linked to workforce development, skills pipelines or local economic participation. Second, partnerships are long term and skills based. Instead of writing cheques, they work with charities, community organisations or training providers in ways that align with their expertise. Supporting employability pathways, mentoring, technical training or access to industry-relevant skills creates value for both sides. Third, outcomes are measurable. They can explain not just what they do, but what changes as a result.

• How many people gained skills.
• How many entered employment.
• How much waste was diverted.
• How operational risk was reduced.

From a procurement perspective, this matters. Buyers are not simply selecting a supplier. They are selecting a partner whose behaviour and impact reflect on their own organisation.

A trust signal in competitive tenders

When bids are closely matched on cost and capability, decision makers often look for reasons to trust one bidder over another. A business that demonstrates mature, practical and integrated responsible business practices sends several clear signals.

• It suggests stronger governance and longer-term thinking.
• It reduces reputational and delivery risk for the buyer.
• It shows alignment with wider organisational goals beyond the contract itself.

This is particularly relevant in framework agreements and multi-year contracts, where suppliers effectively become an extension of the organisation. At this level, responsible business is not about virtue. It is about compatibility.

Moving from cost to value

One of the most significant shifts in procurement over the past decade has been the move from lowest cost to best value. Value is now understood to include social impact, environmental responsibility and contribution to local or national priorities. This is especially true in sectors with high public accountability such as education, healthcare, infrastructure and local government, but it increasingly applies across the private sector as well. For bidders, this creates an opportunity. Responsible business practice is not simply a cost to absorb. It is a way to strengthen a proposition in a crowded market. But only if it is genuine.

A practical test for your next bid

Before submitting your next tender, it is worth asking a simple question. If a procurement panel removed your company name from the bid, would your social value and sustainability commitments still feel distinctive? If the answer is no, the issue is not presentation. It is substance. The most effective bidders do not ask how to add ESG, sustainability or social value to a tender. They ask how to build a business that naturally demonstrates it, whatever terminology they choose to use. In an environment where buyers are under increasing pressure to justify decisions, manage risk and deliver wider value, that distinction increasingly makes the difference between being shortlisted and being selected. Competing on price and quality gets you into the room. Competing on values, impact and credibility is often what wins the contract

About the author

Mike Tarbard is the Founder and CEO of Every Child Online, a UK charity tackling digital exclusion and online safety for children and young people, and Everyone Digital, a nonprofit social enterprise delivering professional IT Asset Disposal and community digital inclusion programmes. Together, the charity and CIC help organisations turn surplus technology into meaningful social impact. Devices are securely wiped, refurbished and redistributed to those who need them most, reducing e-waste, supporting vulnerable communities and helping businesses meet their environmental and social value goals with confidence.