What's your organisational driver?
Five drivers shape the early talent case. Pick yours — the right business case follows, with the evidence you'll need to make it.
? Pick a driver above to reveal the business case it requires, and the evidence you'll need to make it.
Run the cost comparison
Two views finance will recognise. The first answers whether early talent stacks up against experienced hires when you count the true cost. The second answers whether you should run recruitment in-house or via an RPO. Default figures are illustrative — replace with your own benchmarks before any finance conversation.
| Cost component | Early talent (£) | Experienced hire (£) | Difference |
|---|
How the case is made. Year 1 investment for early talent is typically higher because of training and ramp-up. The case is made on long-term value — longer tenure, lower replacement cost, and the loyalty that comes from being developed. Both numbers belong in the finance conversation.
| Cost component | Internal (£) | RPO partner (£) | Difference |
|---|
How to read this. The annual total is what matters — not individual line items. A positive difference means internal is more expensive than RPO for that line. RPO usually wins on small programmes; internal usually wins on larger ones where the per-hire fee dominates. Quality and control factors (offer acceptance rate, candidate experience, hiring manager satisfaction) aren't monetised here — they belong alongside the cost case.
Equality & inclusion across the funnel
Track representation at every stage. The 4/5ths rule analysis flags adverse impact as you enter the data — the standard test used by UK equality bodies and the US EEOC.
| Funnel stage | Group A | Group B | Group C | Stage total |
|---|
4/5ths-rule analysis
For each stage transition, the selection rate for each group is calculated as (people progressing) ÷ (people at the previous stage). The highest-rate group sets the benchmark. Any group below 80% of that benchmark is flagged as potential adverse impact.
| Transition | Group A rate | Group B rate | Group C rate | 4/5ths threshold | Verdict |
|---|
Funnel visualisation
Absolute counts at each stage. Look for stages where representation diverges from the entry point.
A note on the 4/5ths rule
The 4/5ths rule (or 80% rule) is a long-standing screening test for adverse impact in selection. It is not a legal standard in itself under the Equality Act 2010 — but it is the test most commonly applied by tribunals, the EHRC, and the ICO when assessing whether a process has produced disproportionate outcomes. A failure does not prove discrimination; it indicates that the process warrants explanation.
On cohort size — the tool returns "Insufficient data" when any group has fewer than 10 candidates at the entry stage, since the test stops being meaningfully informative below that point. Between 10 and 29, you'll see a verdict with a "small cohort" caveat alongside, because small numbers can swing percentages. At 30 or above in every group, the verdict is statistically robust. None of these thresholds is required by the 4/5ths rule itself — they're sensible defaults for reading the output with the right level of caution.
Calculate your social value
The GIST SROI methodology applied to your programme. You get an indicative range, defensible in a finance or procurement conversation — and Talent People can share the full methodology and verified figures when you need them.
About this calculation
The model
This tool follows the GIST Impact SROI methodology — the same framework used to generate social value figures for procurement responses. Each early talent activity is mapped to one or more outcomes, monetised using externally-evidenced financial proxies, and aggregated across the programme. The result you see is the headline figure procurement panels and ESG reviewers recognise.
Why we show a range
Social value calculations carry inherent uncertainty — proxy values vary by source, cohort profile and time. Displaying the headline as a range reflects that honestly, and gives you a defensible figure to take into a finance or procurement conversation. The per-activity proxies sit behind this tool; Talent People can share the full methodology and verified per-activity values on request.
The IMD 1-4 social mobility uplift
A small number of activities — interview preparation and matching — carry an additional Enhanced Social Mobility impact for candidates from the most deprived 40% of UK postcodes (IMD deciles 1-4). The tool applies a sensible default proportion for those impacts. If your candidate base differs materially from a typical IMD distribution, talk to us — we'll tailor the calculation.
Procurement defensibility
This figure is suitable for tender narrative under the Procurement Act 2023 social value scoring. For audit-grade evidence, document your candidate counts at source (HRIS / ATS / programme tracker), keep the inputs you used here, and request a verified calculation from Talent People when you need the certified version.
Need certified figures for a tender response?
This tool gives you a defensible indicative range. For a verified calculation tailored to your cohort, programme spend and IMD distribution, get in touch — we'll work the numbers with you.
Stakeholder briefing guide
Six audiences, six different versions of the same case. Each one needs different evidence and a different headline. Bring what they need.
The budget conversation rarely fails in the room. It fails in the weeks before, when the wrong people have not been briefed or the right evidence has not been prepared. Use the cards below as your pre-meeting checklist — match the audience to the case, bring the right numbers, and have the objection-handler ready.
The sequencing principle
The order you brief these audiences matters as much as what you tell them. Legal first — to surface any risk before Finance sees the proposal. Procurement second — so the social value framing is in place before the cost conversation. Finance third — with the numbers calibrated by what Legal and Procurement have surfaced. The Board and Comms come last, briefed with a position that already has functional support. This sequence rarely fails because of timing; it fails because someone goes to Finance first.
Session summary
Everything you've worked through in this session, on one page. The numbers update live as you change inputs in the other modules. Use it as a take-away for the budget conversation, or as a checkpoint before you walk in.
Take this with you
Use the Export to PDF button in the top right to capture this summary alongside the underlying detail. Documenting your inputs and the figures you used is half of audit-defensibility — keep the export with your business case workings.