Welcome to the Impact Codex, a living, open synthesis of how business schools and universities evidence their impact, by codifying 20 source frameworks into one consistent, validated reference with 7 generic types of impact, 51 indicators for these types and 428 metrics and 473 ways to measure these.
Business schools and universities are asked, more and more, to demonstrate the difference they make — for research, for education, for students, for organisations and for society at large. Dozens of frameworks now try to capture that impact, each with its own language, indicators and emphasis. The Impact Codex brings them together in one place.
It reads the leading impact frameworks side by side and organises what they measure into a single, consistent map. For any indicator and metric you can see where it comes from, how well it is grounded across frameworks, and whether responsible-assessment guidance encourages it or asks for caution.
Think of it as a shared, evolving reference — somewhere to get an overview of the whole impact ecosystem instead of re-reading every framework. It will keep growing as new credible frameworks emerge.
The whole impact-assessment landscape on one map. Click an impact type (its tab, the centre, the legend, or a coloured arm) to open its page — wheel, intro, and the full catalogue of indicators, metrics and measures beneath.
Impact on the academic community itself — the advancement of theory, method and evidence, measured through citation, recognition and scholarly uptake.
The wheel below brings Scholarly impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Scholarly impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Impact on learners and learning — the development of graduates, the integration of research into teaching, and the school's contribution to human capital.
The wheel below brings Educational impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Educational impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Impact on the practice of firms and professions — the adoption of the school's frameworks, tools and expertise in managerial and organisational decision-making.
The wheel below brings Organizational impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Organizational impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Impact on public policy and governance — the school's influence on legislation, regulation, standards and the decisions of public institutions.
The wheel below brings Policy impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Policy impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Impact on society and the environment — the school's contribution to social, cultural and environmental outcomes, including the Sustainable Development Goals.
The wheel below brings Societal impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Societal impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Impact on economic activity and value creation — jobs, ventures, investment, knowledge diffusion and the financial flows the school generates in its region and beyond.
The wheel below brings Economic & Financial impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Economic & Financial impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Impact on standing and visibility — the school's brand, media presence, ranking position and the attractiveness it lends to its region.
The wheel below brings Reputational impact to the centre and unfolds its structure — indicators on the inner ring, then their metrics and the concrete ways to measure them. Hover any element for detail; the full, searchable catalogue is listed beneath the wheel.
1 · The four-layer logic. The Codex organises everything as a hierarchy: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Reputational impact is one of the seven impact types. Within it sit several indicators (the broad things worth evidencing); each indicator groups a set of metrics (specific, comparable signals drawn from the source frameworks); and each metric is linked to one or more measurements — concrete, generic “how to measure it” definitions. The wheel shows this as concentric rings from the centre outward.
2 · Triple validation (plus an innovation check). Because the Codex is a synthesis, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale so you can judge how well it is grounded — not whether it is “good”. Three core proxies are always shown: Relevance (how fully the metric represents the impact of the activity and audience), Source robustness (how broadly it is corroborated across frameworks — corroboration, provenance and citation precision), and Source fidelity (how faithfully we use it relative to its meaning in the originating framework, checked clause by clause). Metrics drawn from frontier (innovator) sources carry a fourth signal, Credible innovation, scoring how genuinely novel yet credible the contribution is.
3 · Responsible-use review. Separately from grounding, each metric is reviewed against the responsible-metrics movement — DORA, LERU and VERITY. An advisory flag marks whether such guidance encourages the metric, accepts it with care, treats it as a responsible default, or discourages it for evaluation, with a short note, a responsible alternative where relevant, and the exact source clause. This shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
4 · Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and every layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders: Impact status (impact promise — potential future impact — vs impact proof — already realised); Geographic scale (regional, national or international, or scale-neutral); Measurement (whether it carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both); and Maturity (grounded in an adopted framework = established, vs a frontier innovator source = emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These transversal dimensions let you compare and filter like-for-like regardless of which impact type you are in.
5 · Reading the catalogue below. Under the wheel, a table of contents lists this type’s indicators alphabetically, each linking to its section. Every indicator block opens with its definition and its own validation proxies and source frameworks, then presents its metric cards in alphabetical order. Each metric card carries the metric’s definition, the four transversal tags, the validation proxies, the responsible-use guidance, the stakeholders it concerns, the source frameworks (with clause locators), and a numbered list of the concrete ways to measure it.
Scroll to zoom, drag to pan. Hover a metric for its definition, grounding and responsible-use; in a focused type the outer ring shows the measures — hover one for detail. Use the tabs (or click an impact type in the wheel) to open each type's page with its full catalogue below.
What this is. The Impact Codex is a synthesis, not a measurement of any single institution. It reads a portfolio of published impact frameworks and reorganises what they measure into one shared structure: impact type → indicator → metric → measurement. Seven impact types (scholarly, educational, organisational, policy, societal, economic & financial, reputational) form the outer ring; each metric is mapped to the activities and stakeholders it concerns and to one or more concrete ways of measuring it.
How metrics are validated. Because a synthesis has to be as trustworthy as the original frameworks, every metric carries transparent validation signals on a 0–10 scale. They describe how well a metric is grounded — not whether it is “good”.
Responsible use. A separate advisory layer flags whether responsible-assessment guidance (DORA, LERU, VERITY) encourages a metric, accepts it with care, or discourages it for evaluation — so the Codex shows both what the frameworks use and how those measures should responsibly be used.
Transversal dimensions. Cutting across every impact type and layer, each metric is tagged on four qualifiers plus its stakeholders, so you can compare like-for-like wherever you are: Impact status — promise (potential future impact, typically a forward-looking impact activity) vs proof (impact already realised, an outcome that demonstrates impact); Geographic scale — regional, national or international (or scale-neutral); Measurement — whether the metric carries a quantitative or qualitative measure, or both; and Maturity — grounded in an adopted framework (established) vs a frontier innovator source (emerging). The stakeholders tag records whom the metric concerns. These tags appear on every metric card.
The sources. The Codex currently synthesises 20 sources — 16 established frameworks and 4 innovator (frontier) sources — plus 3 responsible-metrics references. Each is described, with a link, in the sources section just below.
Reproducibility & build. The model lives in a structured repository (a master JSON with a generated SQLite database and an Excel datasheet) that this interactive view reads. Each build runs automated integrity checks — validation scores reproduce, citations reconcile, the database is consistent. The synthesis (how each metric is routed, scored and flagged) is reasoned scholarly judgement; source citations are taken from, and checked against, the original framework documents.
Every metric in this codex is synthesised from credible external sources. Below is each source, what it is, what it contributes, and a link to learn more. Established frameworks are stewarded, widely adopted systems; innovator sources are frontier contributions scored on the Credible-Innovation proxy; responsible-metrics references are advisory governance guidance (not impact frameworks, not counted among the twenty).
How each source is represented in the Codex: the impact types it covers, the number of indicators, metrics and ways to measure it contributes (counting both primary metrics and independent corroborations), the share of the 12 stakeholder types it touches, and its balance of forward-looking promise versus realised proof metrics. Counts reflect every metric in which the source appears, so they overlap across frameworks by design.
| # | Framework | Impact types covered | Indicators | Metrics | Measures | Stakeholder coverage | Promise : Proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Established frameworks (16) | |||||||
| 1 | AACSB AACSB International | 6/7 | 25 | 105 | 124 | 12/12 | 35 : 70 |
| 2 | EQUIS EFMD Quality Improvement System | 7/7 | 20 | 59 | 68 | 12/12 | 14 : 45 |
| 3 | AMBA Association of MBAs | 3/7 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 8/12 | 2 : 9 |
| 4 | BGA Business Graduates Association | 6/7 | 12 | 38 | 43 | 11/12 | 4 : 34 |
| 5 | BSIS Business School Impact System | 6/7 | 29 | 158 | 165 | 12/12 | 30 : 128 |
| 6 | PRME Principles for Responsible Management Educatio | 3/7 | 4 | 11 | 14 | 6/12 | 7 : 4 |
| 7 | KEF Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF5) & Ulrichse | 6/7 | 13 | 34 | 42 | 11/12 | 4 : 30 |
| 8 | FT Financial Times Research Insights ranking 2025 | 6/7 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 10/12 | 1 : 13 |
| 9 | ISI Clarivate Societal Impact Framework: A guide t | 7/7 | 21 | 39 | 46 | 10/12 | 11 : 28 |
| 10 | EC KV EU study on metrics and indicators for knowled | 5/7 | 14 | 63 | 70 | 12/12 | 8 : 55 |
| 11 | RRBM Responsible Research in Business & Management | 2/7 | 4 | 11 | 13 | 8/12 | 7 : 4 |
| 12 | THE Times Higher Education Impact Rankings 2025 (S | 1/7 | 2 | 11 | 13 | 7/12 | 3 : 8 |
| 13 | LE London Economics / UUK | 2/7 | 7 | 27 | 33 | 9/12 | 0 : 27 |
| 14 | RII EU JRC | 6/7 | 13 | 23 | 26 | 9/12 | 5 : 18 |
| 15 | EIT European Institute of Innovation & Technology | 4/7 | 6 | 19 | 21 | 8/12 | 0 : 19 |
| 16 | SciVal Elsevier Research Metrics | 3/7 | 9 | 25 | 28 | 7/12 | 8 : 17 |
| Innovator (frontier) sources (4) | |||||||
| 17 | ABDC ABDC Societal Impact Framework for business-sc | 4/7 | 13 | 26 | 38 | 11/12 | 6 : 20 |
| 18 | PIR Positive Impact Rating for Business Schools (D | 4/7 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 5/12 | 3 : 5 |
| 19 | CIVIC Civic University Network | 6/7 | 11 | 38 | 42 | 9/12 | 8 : 30 |
| 20 | 4GU 4th Generation University | 5/7 | 11 | 19 | 21 | 9/12 | 4 : 15 |
Coloured squares are impact types (hover for names). The bar shows promise (blue) to proof (green).
ℹIntended use. The Impact Codex is a test facility for research and learning only. It synthesises and reorganises a portfolio of publicly available impact frameworks for academic study and peer review; each source framework remains the property of its authors and is governed by its own terms. Using the Codex's contents to produce reports, rankings, or commentary intended for commercial distribution, or any use by commercial parties, is not permitted without prior written authorisation from the author.
⚙Disclaimer — AI-assisted construction. The Impact Codex was developed with AI assistance (Claude, by Anthropic) within Anthropic's Cowork environment — for the reading and semantic mapping of the source frameworks, the taxonomy synthesis, the validation-proxy and responsible-use design, the codex repository, and the interactive build. AI tools can make mistakes. Source citations were drawn from the original framework documents and checked against them, but the synthesis itself — how each metric is routed, scored and flagged — should be read as reasoned scholarly judgement rather than authoritative fact, and the original framework consulted when a result will inform a decision. If you spot something that looks off — a misattributed indicator, a questionable routing, or a framework we've missed — please flag it back to the author so the next build can correct it.
⚠Limitations to keep in mind. The Codex is a synthesis, not a measurement of any institution. The four validation proxies (relevance, source robustness, source fidelity, credible innovation) are transparency signals about how well a metric is grounded in the source frameworks — not verdicts on quality or importance. Relevance is computed from the Codex's own tags, so it surfaces inconsistencies but cannot catch a coherent mis-mapping. The responsible-use flags are advisory guidance from the responsible-metrics movement (DORA, LERU, VERITY), not rules. Coverage reflects the frameworks included so far and will shift as more are added.
Author: Wilfred Mijnhardt — Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University Rotterdam; and Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt University (EBS-HWU). ORCID: 0000-0001-9066-0798 · LinkedIn: wilfredmijnhardt.
Build: Edition 2026.2 (v2.0) · Claude Opus 4.8.
Tooling: Claude (Anthropic) in Cowork for framework analysis, synthesis and HTML build; Python for the codex repository (JSON / SQLite) and the Excel datasheet.
All 7 indicators in Scholarly impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.
All 8 indicators in Educational impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.
All 9 indicators in Organizational impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.
All 3 indicators in Policy impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.
All 10 indicators in Societal impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.
All 8 indicators in Economic & Financial impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.
All 6 indicators in Reputational impact, sorted alphabetically. Each indicator lists its metrics alphabetically; every metric card carries its definition, qualifiers, validation proxies, responsible-use guidance, stakeholders, source frameworks and concrete ways to measure it.