Report launch - Measures for successful outcomes: The five capitals approach

Business-focused summary (report launch: “Five capitals approach”)

Purpose & problem being addressed

The report argues the industry lacks a quantitative, outcomes-focused framework to evaluate and prioritize projects beyond narrow financial metrics (e.g., lowest cost / short-term financial return). It targets key procurement and governance gaps:

• Unintended sustainability trade-offs when sustainability is optimized in isolation.
• Disconnects across the project lifecycle: early objectives aren’t reliably delivered and there’s limited feedback/data on whether intended outcomes were achieved.
• A perceived false trade-off between “value for money/efficiency” and “sustainability.”

The proposed solution supports project prioritization and procurement using a broader definition of “value” (not just CAPEX / tender price).

Core framework: “Five Capitals” (balanced scorecard-style)

The model structures sustainability outcomes across five value capitals and aims to keep them interconnected rather than treated separately:

• Human capital: individuals’ health, skills, motivation (productive economy capability).
• Social capital: communities, groups, social infrastructure and cohesion.
• Manufactured capital: goods, assets, materials, including low-carbon/manufacturing system impacts.
• Financial capital: traditional economics plus broader investment returns (including social value).
• Natural capital: local environment, resources, ecological services (including biodiversity and ecosystem services).

Key process concept in the report: indexing + benchmarking

The approach includes:

• An index scale from “business-as-usual” to “significant sustainable outcome” for each capital.
• Normalization/weighting of different capital measures against industry best practice to combine into an overall assessment.
• Use of relevant UK national indicators at the “capital/industry success” level (not necessarily direct project-level measures), plus project-level metrics tied to procurement mechanisms.

Implementation approach (how it gets embedded)

The report and partners emphasize implementation across stages, not just design/construction:

• Project development process

  • Define purpose, intended outcomes, and who the project is for.
  • Monitor delivery of those outcomes during project execution.

• Procurement + appraisal

  • Support evidence-based public sector business cases and private sector funding/procurement criteria.
  • Enable transparency and prioritization of bids against agreed value outcomes.

• Public sector appraisal alignment

  • Suggested alignment into government project appraisal / guidelines and the infrastructure performance reporting agenda.

• Private sector usage

  • Use the five capitals to set measurable value metrics as funding/procurement criteria.

---

Concrete examples / case studies & measurable outcomes (from the report)

Natural capital

• Garden town master plan (Kent; ~8,500 houses)
  • Natural capital strategy to maximize ecosystem services.
  • Biodiversity Net Gain measured at 20% net gain.
  • Co-benefits highlighted: aesthetic + recreational benefits.
  • Note: Biodiversity Net Gain expected to become mandatory via the Environment Bill (increasing relevance for future projects).

Social capital

• King’s Cross development (placemaking)
  • Social value report produced for the scheme.
  • Metrics cited:
    • 7.5 million visitors/users for events/uses.
    • 10.5 hectares of public realm developed.

Human capital

• Mid Metro Alliance (West Midlands tramway extensions)
  • Skills-focused activity tied to light rail.
  • Metrics cited:
    • 50 local graduates from the scheme.
    • 6 enrolled into Trailblazer tramway construction/apprenticeship.
    • 26% employed directly onto the project (others via partners/employers in the region).

Manufactured capital (low-carbon + lifecycle thinking)

• Pennington Pumping Station (Greater Manchester)
  • Flood protection standard described as “1-in-100-year” for 400+ properties.
  • A carbon planning tool used for lifecycle comparison:
    • Savings cited: 35 tons of operational carbon saved.
    • Cost savings: ~£17,000 (over the project life, as stated).

Financial capital (including Social Return on Investment)

• Very social housing in Scotland
  • Social return on investment assessed (well-being + government savings).
  • Metrics cited:
    • £33.7 million social value from £18.3 million investment.
    • Return stated as roughly 1.5x to 2x (based on savings + well-being benefits).

All five capitals in one project (integrated example)

• Thames Tideway
  • Natural: improved water quality / habitats (fishery nurseries).
  • Human: links to employment + skills legacy (e.g., tunneling/underground construction academy; Crossrail legacy).
  • Social: improved river access for communities (recreation + business use).
  • Manufactured: carbon savings via design choices and delivery using barges instead of road.
  • Financial: unlocking development investment by resolving constraints and improving water/sewage outcomes.

---

Metrics / KPIs explicitly mentioned

Across examples, the presentation cites the following measurable indicators (illustrative but concrete):

• Biodiversity Net Gain: 20%
• Engagement: 7.5 million
• Public realm: 10.5 hectares
• Skills outcomes
  • 50 local graduates
  • 6 apprenticeships/enrollments
  • 26% employed directly
• Carbon & cost (Pennington)
  • 35 tons operational carbon saved
  • ~£17,000 cost saving (as stated)
• Social value / ROI (Scotland social housing)
  • £33.7m social value
  • £18.3m investment
  • ~1.5x–2x stated return

Additionally, the report emphasizes an overall industry best-practice index rather than relying solely on single KPIs.

---

Partner work: Construction Innovation Hub & “value framework” (implementation tooling)

Keith Waller (Construction Innovation Hub)

• Frames the hub’s broader program as shifting from cost-only to value-based assessment.
• Cites market/policy drivers:
  • Government expects changes toward off-site and especially manufactured systems (customizable processes vs standard products).
  • A push for retrofit and Net Zero compliance, less waste, and improved whole-life performance.
• Emphasizes the enabling pieces needed:
  • Assurance framework / golden thread linking regulation compliance, performance criteria, and digital/data systems.
  • Collaboration with government and industry procurement/supply chain so value definitions can be specified and delivered.
• Notes a concern about fragmentation: many recovery plans could diverge; the hub seeks joined-up recovery + transformation.

Ron Lang (Construction Innovation Hub)

• Emphasizes lifecycle coverage: value decisions apply not just at capital delivery but also operations/maintenance, retrofit/repositioning, and eventual disposal.
• Describes the hub’s “value framework” components (high-level):
  • Define value expectations (articulate value clearly).
  • Decide how to deliver and adjust commercial strategy accordingly.
  • Ensure supply chain enabling elements (e.g., contracts/insurance models).
  • Build capability and skills to embed the approach.
• Proof-of-concept methodology direction:
  • Within each capital there are proposed subcategories (stated as ~20 in total across capitals).
  • Universal policy-led weighting ranges so clients can’t deem carbon “not important,” but can prioritize based on project/asset context.
  • Need for metrics tailored to client/department/asset class (e.g., well-being measurement differs between education and transport infrastructure).
  • Plans for a web-based tool to guide:
    • weighting value categories,
    • setting expectations,
    • benchmarking “what good looks like,” and
    • evaluating proposals against value expectations.
  • Flags a critical dependency: circularity of data for benchmarking and monitoring.

---

Recommendations / next steps (actionable)

From the report session, the concrete asks were:

• Association members (consultancies/engineering)

  • Use five capitals with clients to measure sustainable outcomes and promote the approach.

• Government + CLC + Construction Innovation Hub

  • Embed five capitals into appraisal and business case processes.

• Private sector clients/funders

  • Bring the model into development appraisal and procurement.

• Association (ACA) commercial model work

  • Develop business models/commercial arrangements that incentivize and reward delivery of five-capitals-defined value, not just effort or cost.

---

High-level view on “how to implement” change (attitude/behavior)

In Q&A, speakers stressed that adoption requires:

• More robust evidence that schemes deliver value beyond financial return.
• A behavior shift by clients to:
  • start questions with “why are we doing this and what value are we getting?”
  • demand proof of outcomes across capitals, not only cheapest bids.
• A belief that it’s not a wholesale process change—it’s adding a consistent, robust framework that structures decision-making and procurement expectations.

---

Presenters / sources (as stated)

• Hannah — Chief Executive, Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE/AC)
• Natalie C — Lead author; Chair of the Association’s sustainability group (speaker named as “Natalie crop” in subtitles; employer referenced as Tony G)
• Keith Waller — Program Director, Construction Innovation Hub
• Ron Lang — Impact Director, Construction Innovation Hub
• Association / industry partners referenced
  • Construction Leadership Council (CLC)
  • Construction Innovation Hub
  • Transforming Infrastructure Performance / infrastructure performance reports (government initiatives)
  • Forum for the Future (credited with the five capitals model origin in Q&A)
  • Procurement for Value workstream led by Ann Bentley (referenced in Ron’s remarks)