Overview
Impact sections are often written last and weakest. They fall back on phrases like 'results will be disseminated through conferences and journals' or 'outreach to schools', which every reviewer has read many times. Funders want something else: a credible chain from your outputs to specific users, to changes in knowledge, practice, policy or products, with activities, partners, resources and indicators behind each link.
Each funder frames this differently. NSF asks for Broader Impacts as one of two equally important merit review criteria, with the potential to benefit society and achieve specific desired outcomes. Horizon Europe's Impact criterion asks for pathways from project results to the expected outcomes named in the topic and to wider impacts, plus measures to maximize impact through dissemination, exploitation and communication. UKRI and many foundations ask how you will engage users and beneficiaries. We write to the specific framing of your call.
We also cover the plans that increasingly sit beside impact: open access publication, data management and sharing plans (such as the NIH Data Management and Sharing Plan or a Horizon Europe data management plan), and intellectual property and exploitation where results may be commercialized.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- NSF applicants whose Broader Impacts were called 'generic' or 'not well developed' in past reviews
- Horizon Europe consortia writing the Impact section and the dissemination, exploitation and communication plan
- Applicants to UK and other funders who must describe user engagement and beneficiaries
- Researchers in basic science who find it hard to describe societal impact honestly
- Applied and community-engaged researchers who want to present partnerships more strongly
Common problems we help with
- Your impact section lists activities (talks, a website) but no change for anyone
- Beneficiaries are described vaguely as 'policymakers' or 'the public'
- Dissemination, exploitation and communication are mixed together
- Outreach activities appear in the narrative but not in the budget or timeline
- You are unsure how to claim impact for fundamental research without overclaiming
- You need a data sharing plan and do not know which repository or standards to name
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Stakeholder and beneficiary mapping: who can use the results and what they need
- Impact pathway from outputs to outcomes and longer-term impacts, with assumptions
- NSF Broader Impacts plan with specific activities, partners, resources and assessment
- Horizon Europe Impact section: results, pathways, target groups, and measures to maximize impact
- Dissemination, exploitation and communication plan with channels, timing and responsibilities
- Engagement plans for practitioners, industry, policy audiences or communities
- Indicators and measures for tracking impact during and after the project
- Open access, data management and sharing plan narrative aligned with funder policy
- Checking that impact activities appear in the work plan and budget
Not included
- Claiming partners, endorsements or policy commitments you have not secured
- Overstating likely societal or economic effects
- Running communications campaigns, websites or events after award (outside this service)
- Legal advice on intellectual property or licensing — your technology transfer office leads on that
What you receive
- Stakeholder map
- A table of user groups, what each needs from the project, how they will be engaged and who on the team leads.
- Impact pathway figure
- A diagram linking outputs to outcomes and impacts, suitable for the proposal.
- Impact section draft
- The Broader Impacts, Impact or pathways section drafted or edited in the funder's format.
- Dissemination, exploitation and communication plan
- A table or narrative of activities by audience, channel, timing, responsibility and indicator.
- Data sharing narrative
- Draft text covering data types, standards, repositories, timelines and access, for you and your data steward to confirm.
How it works
Understand outputs and users
We list what the project will produce and who could use it, drawing on your existing relationships.
Map pathways
We build the chain from outputs to outcomes and impacts, identifying assumptions and missing links.
Design activities and measures
We turn each link into activities, responsibilities, timing and indicators proportionate to the grant.
Draft and integrate
We draft the section and check that activities appear in the work plan and budget.
Frameworks and terms we use
- Outputs, outcomes, impacts
- Outputs are what the project produces; outcomes are changes among users; impacts are longer-term effects on society, the economy or the field.
- NSF Broader Impacts
- Activities with specific, desired societal outcomes, evaluated with the same five review elements as Intellectual Merit, including a well-reasoned plan and a mechanism to assess success.
- Horizon Europe impact pathways
- Results linked to the topic's expected outcomes and the destination's wider impacts, with dissemination, exploitation and communication measures.
- Dissemination versus exploitation versus communication
- Sharing results with those who can use them; using results in further research, products or policy; and informing wider audiences about the project.
- FAIR data and sharing plans
- Findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable data, described through repositories, metadata standards, timelines and access controls.
- Proportionate indicators
- Simple, measurable signs of engagement and uptake, such as practitioner adoption or data reuse, rather than unmeasurable promises.
Impact for fundamental research, honestly
Basic research can have strong broader impacts without claiming to cure disease or transform policy. Training students from under-represented groups, releasing open tools and datasets, partnering with museums or teacher networks, or informing standards bodies are all concrete. We help you choose one or two activities that fit your expertise and resources and describe them well, instead of a long list of thin promises.
Plans reviewers can believe
Credible impact plans share four features: named audiences, named partners or channels, resources in the budget and a way to tell whether the activity worked. Where you have letters of collaboration, we reference them precisely; where you do not, we describe planned engagement without implying agreement.
- Each activity has an owner and a month in the work plan
- Each audience has a reason to engage
- Each claim can be checked at the end of the project
- Costs for events, materials, open access and data curation are in the budget
Data management and sharing as part of impact
Several funders now require a separate data management or data sharing plan, and reviewers or program staff read it. We draft narrative that matches your actual practices and institution's repositories, drawing on our data management plan service when a full plan is needed.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative revision of an NSF Broader Impacts paragraph
A fictional materials science proposal originally stated that 'results will be shared with the public through outreach events'.
Revised activity
Each summer, two community college students join the lab for a ten-week research placement through an existing transfer pathway with a named local college. Students co-author a short research brief and present at the college's end-of-year showcase.
Resources and assessment
Stipends and supplies are included in the budget; the college's STEM coordinator helps recruit applicants. Success is measured by completion of placements, student presentations and follow-up of transfer applications.
Why it is stronger
The activity is specific, resourced, connected to the PI's expertise and assessable — the same qualities reviewers apply to Intellectual Merit.
Illustrative example with invented institutions and plans, showing the kind of change we suggest.
What you’ll need to provide
- The funding call and its impact or broader impacts instructions
- Your aims and expected outputs
- Existing partnerships, networks and past engagement activities
- Institutional resources such as outreach offices, technology transfer or data repositories
- Any previous reviewer comments on impact
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Funder format and length of the impact and dissemination sections
- Whether a data management or sharing plan is included
- Number of partners and audiences to map
- Whether an impact pathway figure is needed
Turnaround depends on
- Availability of partner information and letters
- How settled the project outputs are
- Deadline proximity
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
My research is theoretical. What impact can I claim?
Impact does not have to be immediate or commercial. Contributions to training, open resources, public understanding or other fields are legitimate. We help you pick activities that are genuine and proportionate.
Do I need letters of support for impact partners?
Letters make engagement plans more credible, and some funders require them. We can help you brief partners on what a useful letter covers, but the letters must be written and signed by the partners themselves.
Can you write our data management and sharing plan?
We can draft it with you based on your actual data practices and institutional repositories, and your data steward or research office should confirm it. For complex plans, our data management plan service goes further.
Is dissemination the same as communication in Horizon Europe?
No. Dissemination shares results with those who can use them, exploitation is their use in further research, products or policy, and communication informs wider audiences about the project. Evaluators look for all three, clearly distinguished.