Is there a standard by which a third party can objectively evaluate “whether a company practices impact management”?

To answer this question, Impact Management Review developed its own “impact-management maturity assessment.” Based on a company’s public information (sustainability reports, integrated reports, impact reports, official websites, media articles, etc.), it evaluates the company across five dimensions.

This article explains the design philosophy, evaluation method, the characteristics of each level, and real company examples. It is intended to help readers recognize where their company stands and to serve as a practical guide for moving to the next level.

1. The framework’s design philosophy

Existing frameworks for measuring impact-management maturity include the Impact Management Project (IMP) — which also underpins the IRIS+ system administered by the GIIN — B Corp certification, and the GRI Standards.

However, all of them tend to focus on “whether impact is measured and disclosed,” and are weak on the perspective of “whether impact is actually used in management.” And because they are designed mainly for large, listed companies, they are hard to apply to startups and private companies.

Impact Management Review’s maturity assessment is based on the following design principles:

1. Emphasize integration with the business: It evaluates the creation of social impact within the core business, not CSR activities or philanthropy programs.

2. Treat “using it” as the highest level: Rather than merely measuring and disclosing impact data, it places at the top the question of whether the data is actually used in management decisions, capital allocation, and product development.

3. Evaluate using public information only: It is designed to be evaluated with public information alone, without interviews or internal materials—ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

2. The five evaluation dimensions

Purpose (purpose / strategy)

Evaluates whether the connection between the social issue to be solved and the business is clear. It asks not whether a “purpose statement” exists, but whether the intent of impact is built into the business-model design.

Questions: Is the social issue to be solved concrete? Is solving it linked to core-business revenue? Is a Theory of Change explicit or inferable?

Proof (measurement / evidence)

Evaluates the systematic nature of measurement methods, metrics, and data collection. The core is whether change (outcomes) is measured rather than activity volume (outputs).

Questions: Are outcomes (changes in beneficiaries’ state) measured? Is the data-collection method systematized? Is there third-party verification or certification?

People (organization / talent)

Evaluates whether impact management is internalized across the whole organization. It asks about integration into company-wide values, hiring, and evaluation systems—not a lone “sustainability officer.”

Questions: Are impact-related decisions made at the management level? Are impact metrics built into hiring and performance evaluation? Is impact awareness rooted in the organizational culture?

Transparency (transparency / disclosure)

Evaluates the richness and honesty of disclosure about impact. A key point is whether challenges and unmet KPIs are disclosed, not just positive results.

Questions: Is an annual impact report or integrated report published? Are gaps between KPI targets and actuals disclosed? Are challenges, failures, and unresolved problems disclosed?

Power (application / decision-making)

Evaluates whether impact data is actually used in management decisions. It asks whether impact functions as a “compass for management” rather than “numbers for reporting.”

Questions: Does impact data influence business plans and budget allocation? Is impact evaluation built into reporting to investors and the board? Is there a track record of scaling down or discontinuing low-impact businesses or programs?

3. Characteristics of Levels 1–5

Level 1: Not started

There is awareness of impact, but no systematic effort has begun. There is a will to “do good for society,” but the issue to solve is not identified and no measurement is done.

Typical signs: SDG badges on the website, an annual philanthropy event, an announcement that “we appointed an ESG officer.”

Level 2: Beginning to visualize

The connection between social issues and the business is recognized, and basic measurement begins. But measurement stays at the output (activity volume) level; outcome tracking is not yet in place.

Typical signs: reporting activity volume like “we supported X thousand people” or “we planted X trees”; mapping to individual SDGs; starting to publish a CSR report.

Level 3: Managed / operated

Systematic KPIs are set, and a regular measurement and reporting cycle is established. Outcome awareness is emerging, but causality is not yet proven.

Typical signs: an annual impact report, a measurement/reporting team, regular monitoring of multiple metrics. Many of the six Japanese companies sit at this level.

Level 4: Integrated into management

Impact data is integrated into management decisions. Impact evaluation influences business plans, budget allocation, and product development, and a virtuous cycle of impact and revenue is designed.

Typical signs: impact KPIs regularly brought to management meetings, prioritizing businesses based on impact, disclosing impact in investor relations. As of June 2026, no Japanese company we've assessed has confirmed reached this level; Sakanotochu (overall score 3.9, Level 3) comes closest.

Level 5: Industry-leading

The company transforms industry standards, with its impact approach spreading to competitors and even policymaking. Beyond its own impact, it exercises leadership in setting the “industry’s impact standard.”

Typical signs: participating in setting cross-industry impact standards, requiring impact across the entire supply chain, inviting competitors into impact collaboration. Tony’s Chocolonely, Interface, and Patagonia are at this level.

4. Impact Management Review’s view

The most important insight from this framework is that the move from Level 3 to Level 4 is the hardest.

Companies that reach Level 3 (managed/operated) understand the importance of impact measurement, have appointed staff, and publish reports. But this is where many companies stop. Why?

The cause is the “isolation of the impact team.” The more capable the impact staff, the more polished the report they produce. But that report does not reach the decision-makers in the business units. When impact becomes fixed within the organization as “something to report,” the move to Level 4 is structurally blocked.

To reach Level 4, you must solve not a technical problem (how to measure) but an organizational problem (who uses impact data in which meeting). This cannot happen without a management decision.

5. What others can learn

Level 2 → 3: Narrow KPIs to 3–5 and build a quarterly measurement cycle. “Starting” matters more than building a perfect IMM.

Level 3 → 4: Add impact KPIs to the regular agenda of management meetings. Starting with a pilot in one business unit makes implementation easier.

Level 4 → 5: Begin collaborating with industry bodies, competitors, and policymakers. Actively participate in setting industry impact standards.

Conclusion

The difference in impact management is not a difference in social conscience but a difference in management integration.

Of the five dimensions (Purpose, Proof, People, Transparency, Power), the one where Japanese companies lag most is “Power (application).” The moment you start using impact data as a compass for management, the move from Level 3 to Level 4 begins.

Accurately knowing where your company stands is the first step in impact management.