Beyond Green Claims: The IMPACT7 Framework for Project Evaluation

At inndio, we've developed the IMPACT7 Framework - a comprehensive scoring system that allows us to quickly assess the potential impact and sustainability of projects, particularly in the realm of frontier science and technology.

Our Evaluation Framework:

The IMPACT7 Framework: Inspired by enviral's AT WHAT COST? framework and incorporating insights from Creative for Climate's Greenwash Swatch, our IMPACT7 Framework evaluates multiple aspects of a project's sustainability and impact credentials across seven key dimensions asking "Is it good for people and the planet?". Here's how it works:

Good for the People & Planet Scoring

Total possible points: 35

Scoring interpretation:

• Less than 8 points: Stay clear or suggest a better brief

• 8-25 points: There's potential to evolve it

• 26+ points: Let's work together!

The 7 Questions:

1. Does the project engage with sustainability?

• No [1]

• Yes, but that's not its primary aim [3]

• Yes as its primary aim [5]

2. Has the potential positive impact been qualified?

Consider the early-stage or confidential nature of the science if relevant.

• No clear indication of potential positive impact [-5]

• Theoretical positive impact based on scientific principles, but not yet tested [1]

• Positive impact demonstrated in lab conditions or small-scale trials [3]

• Positive impact verified by independent scientific review or peer-reviewed publications [5]

• Positive impact demonstrated in pilot studies or early real-world applications [5]

3. What is the objective of the project?

• For profit commercial goals [1]

• To help build fame [2]

• To offer a more sustainable/purposeful alternative or contributing to research [3]

• To fund or support charities, organisations or individuals delivering sustainability-led work [4]

• Directly delivering work that accelerates sustainability [5]

4. Does the project require travel?

• Flights, international or domestic [1]

• International (without flights), long-distance road travel [2]

• Short distance road travel, or long distance via rail [3]

• Local, without the use of road travel [4]

• None or only via active transport (e.g walking, cycling) [5]

5. What non-monetary costs are associated with the project?

• Any evidence of exploitation, hazardous waste or deforestation [-5]

• Evidence of unsustainable materials or outputs that aren't being actively addressed [1]

• Some unsustainable materials or outputs but there's evidence they are being reviewed to reduce them [2]

• Some unsustainable materials or outputs but solutions are already in place to minimise and counteract the negative impact of them [3]

• Mostly sustainable materials or outputs, less than 20% are unsustainable and solutions are in place to minimise the impact of these [4]

• We source everything sustainably, have minimised our waste and ecological impact and have a fully equitable business model [5]

6. Does the project avoid greenwashing practices?

Apply the Greenwash Test to any project goals, messaging or client communication.

• No evidence of avoiding greenwashing practices [0]

• Some evidence of avoiding one or two greenwashing practices [2]

• Clear evidence of avoiding most greenwashing practices [4]

• Proactively addresses and avoids all forms of greenwashing [5]

7. How effective is the organisation in supporting or scaling impactful tech businesses?

This is particularly relevant to investors, accelerators, incubator and even agencies.

• Limited track record or misalignment with stated impact goals [0]

• Some success stories, but limited evidence of consistent impact [1]

• Moderate track record with growing focus on impact and tech [2]

• Strong track record of supporting businesses that achieve both growth and measurable impact [4]

• Industry-leading performance in fostering and scaling impactful tech innovations [5]

The Greenwash Test:

In evaluating question 6, we consider the various forms of greenwashing as identified by Creative for Climate's Greenwash Swatch:

1. Greenlighting: Highlighting eco-friendly aspects to distract from unsustainable practices

2. Greenlabeling: Making misleading claims about sustainability

3. Greenshifting: Placing responsibility on consumers rather than companies

4. Greenhushing: Underreporting sustainability efforts to avoid scrutiny

5. Greenrinsing: Frequently changing environmental targets before meeting them

By explicitly including this test in our evaluation, we ensure that we're not only assessing the positive aspects of a project but also scrutinising potential greenwashing practices.

Evaluating Early-Stage and Confidential Projects:

We recognise that many of our clients work on cutting-edge technologies that may still be in early stages or require confidentiality. Our evaluation process is designed to accommodate these circumstances:

For companies in stealth mode or dealing with sensitive intellectual property, our evaluation will be based on the information they're able to share. We commit to maintaining strict confidentiality and can sign NDAs when necessary to gain a fuller understanding of the project's potential impact.

Conclusion

Our evaluation framework allows us to make informed decisions about the projects we take on, ensuring that we align our efforts with initiatives that have genuine potential for positive impact. By considering multiple facets of sustainability, impact, and ethical practices, we strive to contribute meaningfully to the development and promotion of technologies and businesses that can truly make a difference.

This approach not only helps us select projects that align with our values but also provides valuable feedback to our clients, potentially helping them refine their initiatives for greater positive impact. As the landscape of sustainability and impact continues to evolve, we remain committed to refining our evaluation process to stay at the forefront of responsible business practices.