For funders
Foundations invest in change, not in outputs
The Earth Voice Index sits at the intersection of three strategic leverage points that most environmental philanthropy funds separately — and rarely connects.
01 · The case
Three reasons this is a high-return philanthropic investment
Shifting decision-maker perceptions at scale
The most persistent barrier to nature-positive policy and investment is not a lack of scientific data — it is the failure to translate that data into language that registers as credible, urgent and actionable for finance ministers, asset managers and corporate boards.
EVI provides an annual, headline-ready signal — a single score endorsed by hundreds of field organisations and validated by an academic consortium — that travels through media, investor briefings and international forums in a way that IUCN assessments or Planetary Boundaries reports cannot. Foundations that co-fund the EVI become co-architects of a new annual reference that sits on decision-makers' desks alongside the WEF Global Risks Report.
Bridging the data chain from raw science to finance
Foundations often fund both the science — field conservation, biodiversity monitoring — and the finance — TNFD implementation, ESG frameworks — of the nature data chain, but rarely the connector between them. EVI occupies precisely this connector role.
Its scoring model converts field-level assessments into a structured, annually comparable dataset that integrates directly into TNFD-aligned nature risk assessments, ESG due diligence and corporate materiality assessments. Every franc invested in the index amplifies the decision-relevance of the entire conservation data ecosystem a foundation has previously funded.
Strengthening environmental civil society at the global level
EVI is, at its core, an instrument of civil society empowerment. When hundreds of organisations from every region speak through a single, rigorously structured annual index, their voice carries an authority that individual advocacy cannot replicate.
The revenue-sharing model and Expertise Marketplace further strengthen civil society by creating sustainable income streams for participating organisations — reducing their dependence on traditional grant funding.
02 · Alignment
Where EVI maps onto foundation priorities
| Funder priority | EVI contribution |
|---|---|
| Biodiversity & ecosystem protection | Creates an annual accountability signal tracking NGO-assessed ecosystem health globally, supporting CBD COP monitoring and Kunming-Montreal GBF progress measurement |
| Nature-positive finance & TNFD adoption | Threat Ranking and country scores integrate directly into TNFD-aligned risk assessments and ESG due diligence, accelerating investor uptake |
| Civil society capacity & empowerment | Transforms fragmented NGO expertise into a unified global voice and a source of direct revenue through licensing and marketplace participation |
| Climate & environmental governance | Annual results create a comparable baseline for tracking regulatory and governance trends cited by field organisations |
| Knowledge & data infrastructure | Adds the missing perception layer to the global environmental data architecture, complementing scientific indices with field-validated civil society signals |
03 · Theory of change
Six pathways from a published score to changed behaviour
EVI's theory of change rests on the demonstrated power of structured perception surveys to shift policy and investment behaviour at scale — with the addition of a field-based, civil-society respondent base and a benefit model that sustains participation.
| Pathway | Mechanism | Target outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Policy influence | Annual results cited in international processes (CBD COP, UNEA, Davos); national scores create accountability and peer comparison | Governments integrate field signals into nature policy development and review |
| Investment reorientation | Scores and threat rankings incorporated as contextual indicators in TNFD-aligned nature risk assessments; cited in ESG research | Capital allocators factor NGO-assessed natural capital conditions into investment decisions |
| Corporate accountability | Country-level scores enable companies to contextualise operational nature risk; the Expertise Marketplace connects them with NGO field experts | Corporations use EVI as a materiality input and a source of expert advisory capacity |
| NGO empowerment | Panel participation increases the influence of field organisations; peer benchmarking and revenue sharing create tangible incentives | Environmental civil society speaks with a unified, credible voice and benefits from shared revenues |
| Research & knowledge | The annual dataset is made available to academic institutions, enabling longitudinal analysis of civil society perception of ecosystem change | Researchers access a unique, globally comparable perception dataset |
| Public awareness | Annual release creates media narratives; the Earth Voice Map and the future Earth Voice Pulse (Year 3+) extend reach to the general public | Broad public awareness of the state of natural capital |
04 · The proposition
What founding co-funders receive
EVI is seeking a consortium of three to five aligned foundations for the CHF 700,000 Phase I MVP. Founding co-funders join at the point where the architecture is still being set.
A seat at the design stage
Founding co-funders engage on the theory of change, governance concept and reporting cadence during Phase 1 — before the academic RFP closes and the methodology is fixed for its first annual cycle.
Documented, testable milestones
Eight defined success criteria, an eight-phase roadmap with named milestones, and academic deliverables contractually dated at weeks 4, 8, 16, 32 and 44 — an evidence trail rather than a narrative report.
Association with a public-good instrument
Recognition in the inaugural report, the methodology handbook and at the Geneva launch — structurally comparable to supporting IPBES or the IUCN Red List: a contribution to an independent instrument, not a purchase of influence.
First refusal on Year 2
A successful MVP positions EVI to raise CHF 1.5–2.0 million for global roll-out. Phase I co-funders are the natural anchor of that round, on the basis of demonstrated evidence rather than a proposal.
05 · Safeguards
Funding EVI does not buy influence over EVI
This distinction matters as much to us as it does to a funding committee, and it is built into the structure rather than asserted in a policy document.
- Sponsors have no role in questionnaire design, scoring, or publication decisions.
- Methodology is controlled by an independent academic consortium, selected competitively and contractually bound to bias certification.
- An independent Scientific Advisory Committee governs methodological change; a Civil Society Advisory Panel governs respondent representation.
- Academic consortium members must disclose funding sources and may not accept corporate funding from entities operating in sectors covered by the EVI threat taxonomy.
- Full scoring methodology and weightings are published, enabling any actor to scrutinise the basis for scores.
- A formal appeals process for challenging scores is managed by the independent scientific committee, not by EVI staff.
On the corporate sponsor's dilemma
Greenwashing risk arises when corporate support distorts outcomes. EVI's governance explicitly prevents this: a corporation cannot improve its EVI score by sponsoring EVI.
EVI's panel also focuses on on-the-ground conservation stewards — organisations managing protected areas, monitoring ecosystem health, restoring habitats — rather than campaigning organisations whose primary mandate is corporate accountability. EVI amplifies operational expertise, not campaigns.
On controversy
EVI will generate controversy; a credible accountability signal should. The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index — regularly disputed by governments — became globally authoritative because its methodology is open, its governance independent, and it does not capitulate to political pressure. EVI adopts the same standard.
06 · The wider consortium
Partnership categories under development
Co-funders join a partnership architecture that spans academia, civil society networks, institutional validators, survey expertise and media reach. Named organisations below are priority targets for engagement during the MVP, not confirmed partners.
A · Academic methodology consortium
Selected by competitive RFP, mandatory North–South structure. Institutions to be solicited include the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Oxford Martin School, ETH Zurich, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Universidade de São Paulo, University of Nairobi and the Asian Institute of Technology.
B · NGO network partners
Priority targets: IUCN (1,500+ member organisations), BirdLife International (124 national partners), Friends of the Earth International (74 national groups), Climate Action Network International, and the WWF global network.
C · Institutional partners
Priority targets for long-term embedding: UNEP, the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat, IUCN, the World Economic Forum (Davos platform) and the OECD.
D · Survey & data partners
GlobeScan — operating at the intersection of sustainability, stakeholder perception and expert surveys — is the priority target for survey methodology partnership.
E · Media partners
Financial Times or The Economist for global decision-maker audience; Mongabay or Carbon Brief for the environmental specialist audience; Daily Maverick, The Hindu and Folha de S.Paulo for Global South reach.
F · Funding foundations
A co-funding consortium of three to five aligned environmental foundations for Phase I. This is the conversation we are opening now.
Phase I · CHF 700,000 · 3–5 co-funders
Co-create the evidence base
Sponsors are not being asked to fund a demonstrated fact. They are being asked to co-create the evidence base that will make EVI a globally authoritative reference index.