Evidence Before Impact
Mar 28, 2025
Evidence Before Impact: Why organisations should demonstrate evidence before claiming impact, and how avoiding premature impact language
In 2025, companies across the UK and EU operate in a landscape where sustainability claims are increasingly scrutinised. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) expectations now influence procurement processes, investor screening and commercial partnerships. As a result, organisations that reference ESG in their communication are held to a higher standard of proof. Claims about impact or outcomes require evidence, and the absence of evidence is no longer treated as a minor oversight. It is treated as a credibility risk.
This paper explains why evidence must precede impact in ESG communication, why small or early-stage organisations are often pressured into reversing that sequence, and how to establish an evidence-first approach without halting commercial progress. It is a research-led guide for organisations that intend to communicate responsibly while building capability.
1. Why Impact Claims Are Under Pressure
ESG communication has evolved in three stages over the past decade.
Stage one: voluntary marketing
Stage two: regulatory spillover
Stage three: accountability and enforcement
Today impact claims are treated as statements that can influence market behaviour. This places them in contact with consumer protection law, advertising standards and procurement validation. Claims made in commercial environments are therefore treated differently from claims made in informal environments. They imply responsibility.
Impact language such as reduce, cut, eliminate, prevent or improve is interpreted as a result that can be measured. If it cannot, or if the measure is not based on a recognised methodology, the claim becomes vulnerable to challenge.
2. The Evidence Gap
The evidence gap is the space between what an organisation can prove and what it claims. It is the most common source of greenwashing allegations. The gap is normal at early stages. It becomes problematic when language obscures it.
The evidence gap is created by:
Ambition stated as achievement
Product benefits framed as environmental outcomes
Internal process described as external impact
Correlation presented as causation
An organisation may have a compelling theory of change, a credible hypothesis or a strong intention. However, these do not qualify as evidence. They can support storytelling but not impact claims.
3. What Counts as Evidence
Evidence is not a single category. It exists across a spectrum. The level of evidence required depends on the claim.
Process evidence
A description of how work is carried out
Internal procedures linked to sustainability goals
Documentation of steps taken
Performance evidence
Data collected through recognised methodologies
Third-party verification
Benchmarked metrics
Impact evidence
Measurable changes in outcomes attributable to the organisation
Proof that the action caused the result
Clear methodology and reporting frameworks
Most early-stage companies can achieve process evidence. Some can reach performance evidence. Very few can credibly claim impact. The issue is not limitation. It is honesty.
4. Why Small Organisations Feel Pressured to Claim Impact
Early-stage organisations are often pulled into impact language before they can support it. This usually happens because of four pressures.
Commercial pressure
Sales environments reward confident language. Early-stage teams fear losing deals if they appear uncertain.
Competitive pressure
If competitors imply impact, organisations feel compelled to match the claim.
Investor pressure
Pitch materials often encourage outcome-focused language. This creates a disconnect between fundraising messaging and operational reality.
Cultural pressure
Sustainability has become aspirational. Teams worry that modest language will be interpreted as lack of care.
Understanding these pressures helps reduce the impulse to respond with impact claims before evidence exists.
5. Reframing Progress Without Claiming Impact
Progress can be communicated responsibly without implying impact. The following constructions support this.
“We are building the structures to measure outcomes.”
“We are exploring methodologies appropriate for our stage.”
“We avoid attributing external results until measurement is in place.”
“Our focus is clarity and responsible communication at this stage.”
“We acknowledge the need for evidence before impact claims.”
These statements communicate maturity without implying results.
6. Language That Implies Impact Without Saying It
Impact can be implied indirectly. The following phrases should be used carefully.
“Sustainable by design”
“Drives positive outcomes”
“Creates responsible change”
“Improves sustainability performance”
These phrases suggest causal relationships. If the relationship cannot be demonstrated or measured, a safer alternative is:
“May support responsible outcomes depending on context.”
“Designed to reduce friction for sustainability initiatives.”
“Supports decision making related to sustainability objectives.”
Conditional language protects credibility.
7. Measurement Before Marketing
Marketing material is often the first location where impact claims appear. Therefore, the principle of measurement before marketing is increasingly used in ESG-oriented industries.
A measurement-first approach requires:
Clarifying the scope of what is being measured
Selecting appropriate methodologies
Identifying what cannot be measured
Making claims only when measurement is consistent
This does not mean that marketing is delayed until maturity. It means that marketing adapts to stage. Marketing can communicate values, direction and boundaries until evidence is available.
8. The Commercial Value of Evidence-First Communication
Evidence-first communication has clear commercial benefits.
It reduces friction in procurement evaluation
It increases compatibility with ESG-mature buyers
It avoids escalation during vendor assessments
It builds trust without requiring perfection
Early-stage customers and partners do not expect fully formed impact measurement frameworks. They expect alignment between claims and capability.
9. A Step-by-Step Evidence-First Checklist
For organisations aiming to operationalise this approach, the following checklist can support decision making.
Before making a claim, ask:
Can we demonstrate this with data or documentation
Is the claim attributable to us or to external factors
Does the claim require a recognised methodology
Is the claim likely to be interpreted as impact
If challenged, what evidence can we provide
If the answer to any question creates uncertainty, the claim should be revised or removed.
10. Transitioning From Evidence to Impact
An evidence-first approach should be designed to scale. The goal is not to avoid impact claims indefinitely but to prepare for them responsibly.
Transition steps include:
Conducting basic measurement
Establishing internal data ownership
Seeking external verification
Publishing results with methodology
Updating claims based on evidence
Impact is not a marketing milestone. It is an outcome of operational maturity.
Conclusion
Impact claims are structurally different from values statements or product descriptions. They carry implications that require evidence. For early-stage organisations, the most credible position is evidence before impact. This sequence protects reputational integrity, supports commercial access and builds a communication foundation that scales with maturity.
Credibility is built on what organisations can prove.
Not what they hope to achieve.
