Mandate, geography, portfolio and available evidence.
ImpactGround.ai
Different institutions. The same missing decision record.
ImpactGround adjusts the review lens to the buyer, mandate and geography. Each team starts with a live funding or portfolio question, then keeps the rationale, conditions and evidence connected through delivery.
Context in. Portfolio choice out. Evidence carried forward.
The methodology and criteria change by institution. The governed decision chain does not.
Need, fit, overlap, cost, risk and evidence quality.
Fund, strengthen, condition, defer or stop—with rationale.
Turn conditions into actions and update the record with delivery evidence.
Build a defensible grant and programme portfolio.
Which programmes should the foundation renew, scale, redesign or exit before the next board allocation?
Foundation mandate and funding restrictions
Geographic and beneficiary priorities
Current grants, programmes and partner reports
Board risk appetite and decision calendar
Mission fit and additionality
Coverage gaps and portfolio overlap
Evidence quality and delivery capacity
Cost, concentration and sustainability risk
Portfolio allocation report
Conditional renewal and exit recommendations
Grantee evidence requirements
Board decision pack and next review gate
Allocate social investment with a board-ready rationale.
Where should the next CSR budget go—and which existing initiatives should be protected, improved, expanded or stopped?
CSR strategy and board direction
National and sector priorities
Current initiative portfolio and budgets
Partner submissions and previous impact reports
Strategic and national alignment
Beneficiary need by geography
Duplication, gaps and expected reach
Evidence strength, cost and execution risk
Initiative and portfolio decision report
Funding priorities, trade-offs and conditions
Improvement actions with accountable owners
Progress and impact reporting baseline
Choose the initiatives that matter across properties.
Which community and environmental initiatives should each property fund, standardise, localise or stop?
Group sustainability and brand commitments
Property locations and community context
Workforce, supplier and guest priorities
Water, waste, energy and community baselines
Local relevance and beneficiary need
Environmental and social contribution
Replicability across properties
Partner capacity, cost and operational risk
Property-by-property portfolio comparison
Approved initiative plans and local adaptations
Partner evidence and monitoring requirements
Group progress and impact report structure
See the review before you scope the engagement.
Use the illustrative Bank X demo to see the decision chain, or qualify a real initiative or portfolio for the Year‑1 offer.