The Problem with ‘Social Value’—And How to Fix It [column]

Imagine if we measured the meaning of our lives solely by the salary earned per hour worked. Volunteering, raising children, caregiving, athletic achievements—everything would be relegated to the category of ‘non-work,’ deemed secondary simply because it is difficult to quantify in monetary terms. Absurd, right? Yet, this is precisely what we do with social value in urban development.

Everything that cannot be directly assigned a financial value gets lumped into the vague, catch-all category of ‘social value’—as if it is merely the counterpart to ‘financial value.’ By grouping everything valuable but not immediately measurable into a single term, we diminish its significance. Instead of broadening our perspective, we reduce it to an abstraction.?

If we want to take social value seriously, we need to rethink our language. The words we use shape how we perceive, understand, and categorize the world. Language is not just a tool for communication; it defines how we attribute meaning to the things around us. The way we label or frame something influences how we think about it. The words we choose reflect our values and norms, yet they can also limit us by reinforcing outdated thought patterns.?

In my recent research on the value of cultural hubs and creative spaces, I discovered the sheer diversity of social impact. Beyond the 'hard' financial effects, I identified a wide range of other dimensions. Social impact manifests in reduced loneliness and stronger neighborhood connections. Socioeconomic impact relates to employment opportunities and an area’s appeal to new businesses. Cultural impact includes the strengthening of local creative ecosystems. Spatial impact brings new life to forgotten or neglected areas of a city. Let’s not forget personal impact—culture can touch people, shift perspectives, or even transform their outlook on life. And it becomes even more compelling when we consider ecological impact. Cultural hubs are often pioneers in sustainable building and circular economy practices. They foster innovative thinking, leading to new organizational and financial models that drive even greater impact.

So, does it make sense to bundle all these different contributions under one vague umbrella term and pit them against the narrow category of ‘financial value’?

Who’s up for a linguistic experiment? What if we stop using the term ‘social value’ altogether and instead name each form of value explicitly? This is more than a semantic exercise—it could fundamentally shift how we assess projects. Let’s place social cohesion, ecological sustainability, and cultural impact on the same level as financial value. By doing so, we create a fairer playing field. The euro would no longer be the ultimate measure of worth but merely one of many indicators. By unpacking and naming these values precisely, we can make more intentional choices about what truly matters. This prevents meaningful initiatives from being undervalued simply because their impact is not easily monetized.

So, do we truly want to take social impact seriously? Then let’s stop lumping everything together. Scrap the generic term. By being more precise in our language, we create space for a world where not everything needs a price tag to be valuable.